Repository navigation
Conversation
|
I think this is starting to look good! I will be curious to review the reports. |
|
Except it's not reported properly. I'll talk to the compiler a little bit more, maybe he'll change his mind... 🙂 |
ebd46fb to
9eaeaee
Compare
bf96da7 to
7b23f7a
Compare
15f4498 to
c317291
Compare
|
It's my pleasure to make this ready for review. The coverage is working (at least it seems so) now. I used multiple AIs for debugging my original solution, because the coverage reported was low and clearly incorrect (functions that must have been executed in order for tests to pass were marked as not executed). The best results I got were from Claude, which overengineered a "fix" that worked. It was needlessly complicated, so I didn't use it; however, it pointed out the issue I had in my solution – missing permissions for the workers, which are fixed using Main changes are:
|
Also have one job to gather and evaluate tests as needed
`expr` returns 1 (a failure) when the result is 0 which may lead to some failures even though nothing bad happenned (see testsuite.sh)
We will require only the gather-results job succeeding, so we can make things a little bit simpler.
…for modules compilation
|
MOVING THIS BACK TO A DRAFT I went back to this and rebased it to #403. It would be needed anyway and having it ready and serialized seems like a better approach from reviewer perspective. And it also allowed me to gather coverage from all testsuites. It is ready for a review, but we should merge (and also review) it in the right order. |
|
Just to get the idea, this is what we get here: 
|
2 participants
Opening as a draft because I think the generated report is incomplete (well, I guess the build is not executed properly and because of that not everything is marked as executed). I just want to have it out there.
Both lcov & gcov reports are generated, but the source data are the same.