[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

another perl coverage run

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: another perl coverage run
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:28:17 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04)

Hello automake list readers,

Stefano asked for coverage information about Automake recently,
so I triggered another 'make check-coverage' on my system, held
hands of Devel::Cover a bit, waited a looong time, then collected
the results.  They are in a set of HTML pages roughly 500K size,
the toplevel one is attached.

Should I just commit them to the web server temporarily?
Anybody have a better idea of where to store such data?

Anyway, the logs show that there is one place in the build or test code
where we call the installed automake rather than the one inside the
build tree.  This causes Devel::Cover to take into account all those
installed perl modules from the installed Automake package, turning all
the nice statistics about how good our coverage is way down,
undeservedly.  ;-)  Patch coming up on -patches in a minute ...

The summary also shows that apparently some files are not tracked
correctly, for example, although it is fully covered
by the respective unit tests.  I'm not yet sure how that happened.


Attachment: coverage.html
Description: Text document

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]