On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, 11:07 PM Vijay Kumar Banerjee <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, 08:31 Joel Sherrill, <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, 9:54 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 31/5/18 6:44 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: >>> > On 31 May 2018 at 02:02, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org <mailto: >>> j...@rtems.org>> >>> > wrote: >>> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee >>> > <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com <mailto:vijaykumar9...@gmail.com>> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > On 31 May 2018 at 00:28, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org >>> > <mailto:j...@rtems.org>> wrote: >>> > I may not understand correctly but there is test_run and >>> > coverage_run. Someone >>> > suggested making coverage_running an option to test_run. >>> If that's >>> > what's being >>> > asked for, then I think doing it in a follow up patch is >>> OK. >>> > >>> > If that's the intended request, perhaps a ticket should be >>> filed. >>> > >>> > >>> > Sorry for all the confusion. >>> > This patch doesn't change the way test works. It only adds an >>> option to run >>> > the coverage script. coverage_run just runs the >>> coverage.coverage_run >>> > >>> > >>> > :) And I am saying if we want to have one test_run with an >>> argument, do it as >>> > a future work iteration. File a ticket. >>> > >>> > We need to get the code working on the master. >>> > >>> > Okay, we can keep that as a future work (I haven't thought about it >>> though). :) >>> > Getting it to work on master is our primary objective. >>> > >>> >>> Was a ticket raised to removing 'coverage_run' and to use 'test_run'? >>> >> >> I haven't seen tickets for any of the issues we identified. >> > was there supposed to be tickets for each issue? > Yes. If they still apply. >>> Chris >>> >>
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel