Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make it super-easy to collect code coverage for test suite #545

Closed
fingolfin opened this issue Jan 27, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

Make it super-easy to collect code coverage for test suite #545

fingolfin opened this issue Jan 27, 2016 · 3 comments
Labels
kind: enhancement Label for issues suggesting enhancements; and for pull requests implementing enhancements topic: tests issues or PRs related to tests

Comments

@fingolfin
Copy link
Member

We should make it super easy to compute code coverage results for the test suite. E.g. there could be a make target coverage, or perhaps cov-testinstall and cov-testandard, and thes would start GAP with the right options, run the selected test suite, dump everything into a specific place, run profiling on it to create HTML, and finally tell the user where the index.html is.

@fingolfin fingolfin added the kind: enhancement Label for issues suggesting enhancements; and for pull requests implementing enhancements label Jan 27, 2016
@fingolfin fingolfin changed the title Make it super-easy to collect code coveragef for test suite Make it super-easy to collect code coverage for test suite Jan 27, 2016
@fingolfin fingolfin added the topic: tests issues or PRs related to tests label Jan 27, 2016
@ChrisJefferson
Copy link
Contributor

If anyone wants to work on this, there is a basis vagrant box here, which I have used to profile GAP and C (it isn't really in a finished state as it is). https://github.com/ChrisJefferson/GAPCoverage

@fingolfin
Copy link
Member Author

fingolfin commented Jan 12, 2017

With the codecov setup, I am personally mostly happy now, and we might consider this as resolved.

Of course it would be nice if we next could also provide a ready-made solution to package authors, so that they can trivially setup travis and codecov for their packages... Something like my GitHubPagesForGAP just for packages. But that's really a separate issue.

@fingolfin
Copy link
Member Author

I am actually satisfied with the current state using codecov; we already pushed this out to dozens of packages, too.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind: enhancement Label for issues suggesting enhancements; and for pull requests implementing enhancements topic: tests issues or PRs related to tests
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants