Hi dlang lovers,
I recently wanted to improve how I work with coverage data (locally).
For that I came up with a small program, that can be either called after
a `dub test --coverage` or that can be automatically executed after the
unittest with `postRunCommands "$DUB run lst2errormes
On Monday, 25 July 2022 at 13:17:41 UTC, Moth wrote:
or was the .lst extension chosen arbitrarily?
my text editor [notepad++] thinks it's COBOL for some reason
but that's obviously not correct, so i'm wondering if it has an
official spec or anything. knowing the name of it would help -
maybe
or was the .lst extension chosen arbitrarily?
my text editor [notepad++] thinks it's COBOL for some reason but
that's obviously not correct, so i'm wondering if it has an
official spec or anything. knowing the name of it would help -
maybe my editor already has syntax highlighting for it.
On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 22:27:48 UTC, forkit wrote:
On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 19:32:31 UTC, Dr Machine Code
wrote:
On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 23:51:42 UTC, foxit wrote:
[...]
is your IDE more of a REPL thing?
It's a custom IDE for me, that I wrote using Winforms/C#
(devel
On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 19:32:31 UTC, Dr Machine Code
wrote:
On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 23:51:42 UTC, foxit wrote:
On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 22:35:21 UTC, forkit wrote:
[...]
Actually, the reason I got soo confused is clear to me now.
I have my own GUI IDE, which I wr
On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 23:51:42 UTC, foxit wrote:
On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 22:35:21 UTC, forkit wrote:
[...]
Actually, the reason I got soo confused is clear to me now.
I have my own GUI IDE, which I wrote myself (winforms/C#) cause
I got so fed up with creating/saving
On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 22:35:21 UTC, forkit wrote:
On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 21:40:33 UTC, Ali Çehreli
wrote:
On 11/11/21 1:37 PM, forkit wrote:
dmd test.d -cov
...but no .lst file anywhere to be found. Huh! I don't get it.
Please run the program! :)
Ali
oh! that kinda m
On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 21:40:33 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 11/11/21 1:37 PM, forkit wrote:
dmd test.d -cov
...but no .lst file anywhere to be found. Huh! I don't get it.
Please run the program! :)
Ali
oh! that kinda makes sense, now that I think of it ;-)
On 11/11/21 1:37 PM, forkit wrote:
dmd test.d -cov
...but no .lst file anywhere to be found. Huh! I don't get it.
Please run the program! :)
Ali
// --
module test;
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
writeln("Hello World!");
}
// ---
dmd test.d -cov
..but no .lst file anywhere to be found. Huh! I don't get it.
What's the reasoning behind picking exit code 1 ?
Makes it pretty much impossible to distinguish between a lack of
coverage code 1 and a process code 1.
Is there a handler where it can be overridden ?
On Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 18:59:11 UTC, user1234 wrote:
[...]
I'd use option 2.
Thanks, I'll do just that :)
On Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 15:27:23 UTC, wjoe wrote:
Is there a convenient way to exclude it from coverage ?
Because adjusting the -cov=xx percentage is kind of annoying
and may omit other things as well.
Do you care and if yes how do you handle it ?
You have several options
1
Is there a convenient way to exclude it from coverage ?
Because adjusting the -cov=xx percentage is kind of annoying and
may omit other things as well.
Do you care and if yes how do you handle it ?
://community.codecov.io/t/uploading-d-lang-coverage-doesnt-work/1740
So hopefully, someone will look at this.
Bookmarked. Thanks much for taking the time to register on
their forums, I didn't want to.
Forgot to say. In my case I suspect that this is caused by a
force push, like here
On Tuesday, 14 July 2020 at 11:05:17 UTC, Mitacha wrote:
On Saturday, 11 July 2020 at 09:43:39 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 July 2020 at 15:55:58 UTC, Mitacha wrote:
I filed an issue on codecov community forum
https://community.codecov.io/t/uploading-d-lang-coverage-doesnt-work/1740
ing gcov in . (disable via -X gcov)
==> Python coveragepy not found
==> Searching for coverage reports in:
+ .
--> No coverage report found.
Please visit http://docs.codecov.io/docs/supported-languages
---
That used to work perfectly. Note that it's broken for DMD test
suite too.
I
On Wednesday, 8 July 2020 at 15:55:58 UTC, Mitacha wrote:
Hello there,
I've been trying to setup bitbucket pipelines to submit
coverage to codecov, but with no luck.
I use `dub run -b unittest-cov` and it generates .lst files
correctly, then `bash <(curl -s https://codecov.io/
On Wednesday, 8 July 2020 at 15:55:58 UTC, Mitacha wrote:
Hello there,
I've been trying to setup bitbucket pipelines to submit
coverage to codecov, but with no luck.
I use `dub run -b unittest-cov` and it generates .lst files
correctly, then `bash <(curl -s https://codecov.io/
Hello there,
I've been trying to setup bitbucket pipelines to submit coverage
to codecov, but with no luck.
I use `dub run -b unittest-cov` and it generates .lst files
correctly, then `bash <(curl -s https://codecov.io/bash) -t
$CODECOV_TOKEN` is called, but all I get is:
```
==>
On Sunday, 24 September 2017 at 05:48:32 UTC, Tony wrote:
I am compiling a module (utils) with one function in it with
the -cov compiler option on Ubuntu 14.04 with DMD v2.073.2. I
then compile a "main module" with -cov that imports the "utils
module" and calls the one function. The *.lst outpu
I am compiling a module (utils) with one function in it with the
-cov compiler option on Ubuntu 14.04 with DMD v2.073.2. I then
compile a "main module" with -cov that imports the "utils module"
and calls the one function. The *.lst output file shows lines
that executed in the "main module". I w
Hi,
I am wondering if there is any way of getting the code coverage
at runtime... As a I seen in the runtime, the .lst files are
created inside this module dealocator:
https://github.com/dlang/druntime/blob/master/src/rt/cover.d#L152
and the `Cover[] gdata;` is private, so no way of
;arg4"]);
return 0;
} else {
return realMain(args);
}
}
This only deals with one build configuration, though, which is why it's
better to be able to combine coverage reports.
I had one case these days in which I also had a lot of data to use in the
test. I was able to put the data as very large regular D arrays, but this
increased my compilation times a lot (not to mention the time to run the
unit tests).
I decided to enclose this specific unit test (including the `imp
On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 at 12:35:38 UTC, Leandro Motta
Barros wrote:
You probably already though of it, but: can't you create a
unittest that calls your code as many times as desired, passing
different input each time?
That is a viable option yes. I will probably end up doing it like
tha
currently run dmd's coverage on my unittests.
>
> But now I also want to execute my program with different inputs and then
> merge all that coverage info from each run.
>
> Any chance there is something for that?
>
I currently run dmd's coverage on my unittests.
But now I also want to execute my program with different inputs
and then merge all that coverage info from each run.
Any chance there is something for that?
On Monday, 10 August 2015 at 04:03:36 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
On 10/08/2015 8:24 a.m., Alexei Bykov wrote:
D has builtin support for coverage analysis but it produces
only .lst
files. This is a bit inconvenient. Is there any tool which can
create
something like an html report from .lst
On Monday, 10 August 2015 at 08:06:35 UTC, Stefan Frijters wrote:
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 at 20:24:22 UTC, Alexei Bykov wrote:
D has builtin support for coverage analysis but it produces
only .lst files. This is a bit inconvenient. Is there any tool
which can create something like an html
On Sunday, 9 August 2015 at 20:24:22 UTC, Alexei Bykov wrote:
D has builtin support for coverage analysis but it produces
only .lst files. This is a bit inconvenient. Is there any tool
which can create something like an html report from .lst files?
For now I'm using OpenCppCoverage which i
On 10/08/2015 8:24 a.m., Alexei Bykov wrote:
D has builtin support for coverage analysis but it produces only .lst
files. This is a bit inconvenient. Is there any tool which can create
something like an html report from .lst files?
For now I'm using OpenCppCoverage which is not the best too
D has builtin support for coverage analysis but it produces only
.lst files. This is a bit inconvenient. Is there any tool which
can create something like an html report from .lst files?
For now I'm using OpenCppCoverage which is not the best tool and
works only on Windows but at lea
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 02:19:52 antropod via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> I want my coverage analysis to be 100%, how do I skip lines like
> assert(0);
> from being counted?
AFAIK, there is no way to so, and I've mentioned that problem to Walter
before, so I would have e
I want my coverage analysis to be 100%, how do I skip lines like
assert(0);
from being counted?
erate them. These functions are never called at runtime, and
as such are shown with the nasty red bars for no coverage. Is it
possible to get a -cov dump for code run at compile time?
[1] https://github.com/ColdenCullen/doveralls
I've just noticed that in the .lst file for one of my libs the execution
counts stop lining up with the source, and the source itself is
truncated by a couple of lines. The function where the misalignment
begins contains an "if (__ctfe)" block (first time I ever used one) but
just testing that
On Sunday, 27 April 2014 at 00:37:39 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
So, under Linux, if I start the program as test/wont then the
.lst gets generated in the current directory.
Ali
Just tried that in Windows, and the same thing happened. Weird!
I'll be sure to file a bug report. Thanks for the confi
On 04/26/2014 01:11 PM, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
> If you compile with -cov
> AND use -of where the output file is in a different directory than where
> the build is taking place(eg, buld happens in C:/DProject/, and the
> command line has -ofC:/DProject/Unittest/Unittest.exe), no .lst files
> are pr
On Friday, 25 April 2014 at 08:20:37 UTC, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
On Friday, 25 April 2014 at 04:23:45 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 04/24/2014 08:32 PM, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
> added the -cov switch to my unit test build
Then you must execute the program. :)
Ali
I did, but still nothing. I even t
On Friday, 25 April 2014 at 04:23:45 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 04/24/2014 08:32 PM, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
> added the -cov switch to my unit test build
Then you must execute the program. :)
Ali
I did, but still nothing. I even tried using the switch in a
debug build and the same thing happe
On 04/24/2014 08:32 PM, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
> added the -cov switch to my unit test build
Then you must execute the program. :)
Ali
Hey all,
I tried to use code coverage analysis for the first time tonight.
I added the -cov switch to my unit test build, but no matter what
I do, I can't seem to locate the produced .lst files. Is there
something I should know that isn't in the docs that I might be
doing wrong? I&
thname );
That is perfect! Many many thanks!
Add these prototypes to your code and use them to override the
default coverage paths.
Saurabh
verride the
default coverage paths.
On 04/03/2014 09:10 PM, Saurabh Das wrote:
> Say I compile a program with:
>
> dmd -unittest -debug -cov test.d
So, that's what the makefile generates. ;) You can have an additional
line that moves the coverage file away.
Ali
After reading some of the bug reports on BugZilla, I gather that
this isn't possible yet :(
Thanks,
Saurabh
On Friday, 4 April 2014 at 04:10:51 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
Hello,
Say I compile a program with:
dmd -unittest -debug -cov test.d
Then, when I run ./test, a file 'test.lst' is generat
Hello,
Say I compile a program with:
dmd -unittest -debug -cov test.d
Then, when I run ./test, a file 'test.lst' is generated in the
current working directory. Is there a way in which I can instruct
the file to be created in a separate './cov_log/' directory?
Thanks,
Saurabh
timotheecour:
Why not have a -staticcov (or -ctcov) flag to dmd that produces
compile time code coverage?
This seems a note fit to be added to this:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9721
Bye,
bearophile
Why not have a -staticcov (or -ctcov) flag to dmd that produces
compile time code coverage?
This will work for most code (with the exception of virtual
methods called from a base class -- anything else?): it'll just
produce 1 or 0 depending for each line compiled in, depending on
whether
50 matches
Mail list logo
