Am Sonntag, 29. September 2013, 14:22:02 schrieben Sie: > Eike, > > This is fantastic feedback. Thanks! > > I've responded to specific issues inline. > > TL;DR: I fixed a lot of these points. This should be closer to > merge-ability. > > Am Freitag, 27. September 2013, 11:30:52 schrieb Patrick Reynolds: > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > I just pushed a topic to the stage that adds support for coverage.py > > > python > > > coverage. It actually should work for anything the exports cobertura > > > coverage.xml files. > > > > > > The topic is here: > > > > > > http://public.kitware.com/gitweb?p=stage/cmake.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/hea > > > ds/A dd-coverage.py-Coverage > > > > You are doomed! Now that you want to introduce a new coverage handler I'll > > complain as long until you add a testcase for it, i.e. putting a sample > > output file in the Tests/ directory and verify that CTest will generate > > the expected results ;) > > Challenge accepted! The test is added and I pushed the updated branch:
I would prefer if you could start with a Tests/Coverage/ directory (or something similar) as the other coverage handlers also need such tests and this avoids a later move. Brad? > http://public.kitware.com/gitweb?p=stage/cmake.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/A > dd-coverage.py-Coverage > > But there are some things about your code and even about older code. > > First, > > you do not set error from cont.error in > > cmCTestCoverageHandler::ProcessHandler(). > > Fixed on the aforementioned branch. I don't see it. > > Second, this whole gathering code there will badly fail once 2 coverage > > systems are present and the second one gives an error. Say gcov finds 2 > > files. Then python has an error, returns -1. The file count is 1, no > > error is propagated. This is not your fault, but please fix this in one > > commit first before adding your new handler. And maybe make this block > > from gcov to mumps somehow use an array, vector, list, or something and > > just iterate over it, so you only have to add your handler into the > > array. > > Hmmm. I agree with you on this one; however, I think this may be beyond the > scope of my contribution. If it's okay with the community, I would like to > add a bug in Mantis for this overall and treat it as a separate topic. Yes, probably. Brad, any preferences on how this should be done? > > Another important question: can python handle the situation where 2 test > > programs run in parallel and want to write to the coverage file? Or will > > they just happily trash each others results? That's a problem I fixed in > > 2.8.12 which would have happened for all other coverage generators. > > I have not verified this experimentally, but coverage.py claims to support > this through there '-p', parallel option. Let's hope the best ;) > I'll leave this one to folks who are better versed in the arcane art of > Bullseye... Does anyone still use this? ;) Eike --
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
