build with code coverage

Michael Stahl mstahl at
Tue Jul 9 14:06:51 PDT 2013

On 09/07/13 22:04, John Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:49 PM, bfo <bfo.bugmail at> wrote:
>> John Smith wrote
>>> I also ran an lcov report on current master, and uploaded the results
>>> here:
>> H!
>> Thanks a lot, hope you can run it and upload at least once after branching.
>> Anyone can comment the results vs master~2012-12-23_14.37.59? Are those
>> comparable?
> Remind me later on this list after your branch, and ill see what i can do.
> Comparing earlier results, the amount of code lines 'hit' by the
> tests/checks seems to have increased a lot, so I guess that is a good
> thing.
> But if you really want comparisons to have any siginificant meaning, I
> guess some serious time needs to be invested in :
> 1.) improving and expanding the tests.
> 2.) running the lcov/gcov code coverage at regular intervals.
> When posting on this list, I just get the impresssion that there just
> isnt enough interest at this point to realize that right now. So I
> guess that right now generating the reports is primailry for my
> personal educational value, which is just fine by me; im learning as I
> go.

i'm afraid that right now we have so many obvious large gaps in test
coverage that using test coverage tools is a bit premature.  perhaps one
run per release cycle would be informative for general trends but likely
few developers have the time to look at the result in detail anyway (i

More information about the LibreOffice mailing list