You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by David Kimdon <da...@kimdon.org> on 2004/03/07 09:54:43 UTC
Subversion testsuite coverage
Hi,
I put a summary of Subversion's testsuite coverage up at:
http://people.debian.org/~dwhedon/subversion/gcov-report.html
I ran check, svncheck, svnsshcheck, and davautocheck.
In general the coverage is impressive. There are some notable gaps
which could be filled by modifying the testsuite authentication
(libsvn_ra_svn/cram.c, mod_authz_svn/mod_authz_svn.c for example are
completely untested). The files with above 80 % coverage (which is
about 70 % of the total files) are in general missing tests that
exercise error handling and early returns.
Enjoy,
David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Subversion testsuite coverage
Posted by Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>.
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 10:40, Julian Foad wrote:
> This could parhaps be committed directly into our build system, but
> maybe it is a bit too specialised. Certainly it would be nice to have
> it in tools/dev/.
I agree. I think a build system should have exactly as much verbiage as
is needed to do the normal build system things, and no more. It should
not be a dumping ground for targets which are only likely to see use by
one or two people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Subversion testsuite coverage
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Sander Striker wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 10:54, David Kimdon wrote:
>
>>I put a summary of Subversion's testsuite coverage up at:
>>
>>http://people.debian.org/~dwhedon/subversion/gcov-report.html
>
> Mind if I commit the patch to configure (to enable producing this
> data) to tools/dev ?
I guess you are asking David if he minds. Maybe he thought, as I did, that you were asking the other developers.
The patch to configure.in and Makefile.in, which is linked from that page, looks neat in the way that it just adds one block to each of those files and is enabled by an option to 'configure'. It does not look quite right in detail, though:
> Index: Makefile.in
> ===================================================================
> --- Makefile.in (revision 8904)
> +++ Makefile.in (working copy)
> @@ -326,6 +326,37 @@
> @$(MAKE) check \
> BASE_URL=svn+ssh://localhost`pwd`/subversion/tests/clients/cmdline
>
> +gcov:
> + @echo -n "Collecting source files ..." ; \
> + FILES=`find subversion/ -path '*/tests/*' -prune -o \
> + -name '*.c' -print`; \
> + echo "Done." ; \
> + echo "Coverage report Subversion r`svnversion .`<br>" \
This isn't exactly the same patch that produced the web page: the message is different, for a start.
> + echo "`date`<br>" \
> + > gcov-report.html; \
> + > gcov-report.html; \
Huh? Was one of these redirections meant to be attached to the previous 'echo "Coverage..."' command, and the other one meant to use ">>"?
The rest of the patch looks OK to me, but I guess that wasn't the latest version of it.
This could parhaps be committed directly into our build system, but maybe it is a bit too specialised. Certainly it would be nice to have it in tools/dev/.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Subversion testsuite coverage
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 10:54, David Kimdon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I put a summary of Subversion's testsuite coverage up at:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~dwhedon/subversion/gcov-report.html
>
> I ran check, svncheck, svnsshcheck, and davautocheck.
>
> In general the coverage is impressive. There are some notable gaps
> which could be filled by modifying the testsuite authentication
> (libsvn_ra_svn/cram.c, mod_authz_svn/mod_authz_svn.c for example are
> completely untested). The files with above 80 % coverage (which is
> about 70 % of the total files) are in general missing tests that
> exercise error handling and early returns.
Mind if I commit the patch to configure (to enable producing this
data) to tools/dev ?
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org