Re: [julia-users] Getting 0 test coverage, when I know that's not true...
Are you saying that no line has anything higher than a 1 in front of it? I just tried the procedure you described below, as well as the simpler `Pkg.test(Control, coverage=true)` (which now works on julia 0.4 again, if you're up to date). Both approaches worked fine for me. Do you have any problems with your backtraces, or anything else potentially related? What's your platform? --Tim On Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:52:17 AM James Crist wrote: I'm having issues getting coverage to work. Here's what I'm doing: 1. From my package directory I run this: $ julia --code-coverage --inline=no test/runtests.jl This results in *.cov files for all files that are run. 2. Run julia, then: julia using Coverage julia coverage_folder() This prints out a list of files in my src folder. All files that have *.cov associated with them also show Skipped file_name. Looking closer at the *.cov files, I see that all lines that *I know* are run have a 0 next to them, even if they are run several several times in the tests. Lines that have no coverage are still at `-`. Any idea why? I'm kind of baffled on this. The package in question: https://github.com/JuliaControl/Control.jl
Re: [julia-users] Getting 0 test coverage, when I know that's not true...
The one other thing that could be useful would be full versioninfo(); it could be a LLVM-version thing. Please do file this as an issue, so it doesn't get lost. But the bottom line is that I have no clue what's going on. Your version of julia is nominally new enough to not have any coverage-related bugs I know about :-). But it's not behaving in the typical manner, so something is wrong. In case it's a packaging problem, depending on how much you care about this functionality you may want to try building your own julia straight from the git repo. Best, --Tim On Thursday, January 22, 2015 05:41:20 PM James Crist wrote: Yeah. All lines that get run are 0, and all untested lines remain at `-`. My backtraces all look fine (at least I haven't noticed anything weird). Platform is x86_64 arch linux, running 8 day old master, commit eea31ae*. I can replicate this in a small testable case by creating a small script, and running it with coverage, so it's not specific to my package. On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Tim Holy tim.h...@gmail.com wrote: Are you saying that no line has anything higher than a 1 in front of it? I just tried the procedure you described below, as well as the simpler `Pkg.test(Control, coverage=true)` (which now works on julia 0.4 again, if you're up to date). Both approaches worked fine for me. Do you have any problems with your backtraces, or anything else potentially related? What's your platform? --Tim On Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:52:17 AM James Crist wrote: I'm having issues getting coverage to work. Here's what I'm doing: 1. From my package directory I run this: $ julia --code-coverage --inline=no test/runtests.jl This results in *.cov files for all files that are run. 2. Run julia, then: julia using Coverage julia coverage_folder() This prints out a list of files in my src folder. All files that have *.cov associated with them also show Skipped file_name. Looking closer at the *.cov files, I see that all lines that *I know* are run have a 0 next to them, even if they are run several several times in the tests. Lines that have no coverage are still at `-`. Any idea why? I'm kind of baffled on this. The package in question: https://github.com/JuliaControl/Control.jl
Re: [julia-users] Getting 0 test coverage, when I know that's not true...
I'm using the arch build from the aur, so it may be an issue with that. I'll try rebuilding it tonight with the latest master and see. I filed an issue here: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/9891 On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 8:18:09 PM UTC-6, Tim Holy wrote: The one other thing that could be useful would be full versioninfo(); it could be a LLVM-version thing. Please do file this as an issue, so it doesn't get lost. But the bottom line is that I have no clue what's going on. Your version of julia is nominally new enough to not have any coverage-related bugs I know about :-). But it's not behaving in the typical manner, so something is wrong. In case it's a packaging problem, depending on how much you care about this functionality you may want to try building your own julia straight from the git repo. Best, --Tim On Thursday, January 22, 2015 05:41:20 PM James Crist wrote: Yeah. All lines that get run are 0, and all untested lines remain at `-`. My backtraces all look fine (at least I haven't noticed anything weird). Platform is x86_64 arch linux, running 8 day old master, commit eea31ae*. I can replicate this in a small testable case by creating a small script, and running it with coverage, so it's not specific to my package. On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Tim Holy tim@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Are you saying that no line has anything higher than a 1 in front of it? I just tried the procedure you described below, as well as the simpler `Pkg.test(Control, coverage=true)` (which now works on julia 0.4 again, if you're up to date). Both approaches worked fine for me. Do you have any problems with your backtraces, or anything else potentially related? What's your platform? --Tim On Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:52:17 AM James Crist wrote: I'm having issues getting coverage to work. Here's what I'm doing: 1. From my package directory I run this: $ julia --code-coverage --inline=no test/runtests.jl This results in *.cov files for all files that are run. 2. Run julia, then: julia using Coverage julia coverage_folder() This prints out a list of files in my src folder. All files that have *.cov associated with them also show Skipped file_name. Looking closer at the *.cov files, I see that all lines that *I know* are run have a 0 next to them, even if they are run several several times in the tests. Lines that have no coverage are still at `-`. Any idea why? I'm kind of baffled on this. The package in question: https://github.com/JuliaControl/Control.jl
