build with code coverage

[John Smith]

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Michael Stahl <mstahl at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/07/13 22:04, John Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:49 PM, bfo <bfo.bugmail at spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>>> John Smith wrote
>>>> I also ran an lcov report on current master, and uploaded the results
>>>> here:
>>>> http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/lcov_reports/master~2013-07-08_14.53.51/
>>>
>>> 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
> don't).
>
Yes, of course this is what i meant to say.
;)



Regards,

John Smith.