Re: [PATCH 0/4] Coverage support revisited

Jens Lehmann [off-list ref] writes:

Am 13.05.2013 23:27, schrieb Thomas Rast:

quoted

Jens asked me at git-merge if coverage support was still available.
Turns out it is, but there were some weirdnesses.  So this should fix
them.  It is reaaaally slow as you still have to run the tests one by
one; despite claims in the wild that it is multiprocess- safe but
thread-unsafe, I am in fact observing the opposite behavior pretty
clearly.  (As before, it switches to sequential tests automatically,
so you have to edit the Makefile if you want to try with parallel
tests.)

Thx! That might explain why the coverage run I tried today didn't
work (I saw bogus test failures).

Indeed it does.  I should have mentioned it in the cover letter; it's
fixed by this series but if you set DEFAULT_TEST_TARGET=prove like
everyone else, it ignored the (existing) force-to-sequential rule.

quoted

unpack-trees.c: verify_clean_submodule

This is the one I was after. While discussing my recursive update
code with Peff on Saturday we wondered if that function would ever
be called. I'll check if the tests are missing some relevant cases,
if that function can be removed or some refactoring is necessary.

Hmm, while function coverage is already extremely useful me thinks
lcov support would be really nice. We'd have line and branch coverage,
which help me a lot in finding dead code and missing tests at $DAYJOB
... will look into that when I have the recursive update ready.

Actually if you run it, it generates submodule.c.gcov as an intermediate
step to the uncovered-functions list.  Of course you can also use any
other tool that can read gcov; the results are cleaned before the run,
not after, so they will remain in place.

Originally I hacked together an uncovered-functions list because that
list was so long that looking at things in even more detail seemed
extremely pointless.

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch