Hi Maxim, On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 07:33:20PM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote: > This is more or less in line with our numbers. Just from today report for > mainline: 77.8% for lines coverage and 93.1% for functions. These figures > include njs code though. > > > I was wondering if I did something wrong in my measurements, if this is a > > known weakness of the test-suite, and in the latter case, if this is > > something that the Nginx project is open to receiving contributions on. > > Probably not a weakness but unjustified expectations? :-) > > I think the biggest non-covered part comes from various errors paths. > Some of them could be hard to trigger. For example, for memory > allocation failures we use separate nodes with modified ngx_palloc.c > which enables random memory allocation errors. This is not a part of > the standard test suite though.
Thanks for confirming the numbers! Makes sense. We made the same observation with error paths, and it's nice to confirm it. I suppose that stimulating some of these error paths would require approaches (syscall interception, some degree of mocking) that might be in contradiction with the requirements you listed below (compactness, CI/CD). > Anyway, any meaningful contributions in this area will be highly > appreciated. > > http://nginx.org/en/docs/contributing_changes.html > > There are several things to keep in mind: we want to keep the suite compact > as it is now and be able to have it integrated into CI/CD systems easily. Alright, we will definitely attempt to upstream any test that we might have to write for this project. :-) Best, Hugo -- Hugo Lefeuvre (hle) | www.owl.eu.com RSA4096_ 360B 03B3 BF27 4F4D 7A3F D5E8 14AA 1EB8 A247 3DFD ed25519_ 37B2 6D38 0B25 B8A2 6B9F 3A65 A36F 5357 5F2D DC4C
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ nginx-devel mailing list -- nginx-devel@nginx.org To unsubscribe send an email to nginx-devel-le...@nginx.org