Bug 38840 - Adding coverage analysis to unit tests

[Philipp Riemer]

That's great news! Thank you very much for your work!

Unfortunately, the report currently looks pretty red... But now we
have evidence and a way to trace pieces that need more tests.

Philipp

2012/8/23 John Smith <lbalbalba at gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
>
> I just finished a first full run of lcov. There was one 'make check'
> failure though, and there were a lot of 'warnings' running lcov that
> may need some further investigation. Also, there is some stuff
> included ('/usr/include/boost', for example) that might not be desired
> in the report ?
>
> I guess the main thing to do first now is to see if this report
> actually makes any sense. Essentially, all code that gets executed by
> 'make check' on toplevel (which does dev-install and subsequentcheck,
> and dev-install includes both unitcheck and slowcheck) should show up
> as covered in the report. Maybe people that are familiar with the
> contents of the checks/tests and what code/functionality they cover
> can take a look at that ?
>
> Anyway, the generated html report as it currently is can be found here :
> http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/lcov_reports/
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> John Smith.