[PATCH v2] tester: Add script to generate html coverage report from covoar output

[Vijay Kumar Banerjee]

On 1 June 2018 at 20:30, Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee
> <vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1 June 2018 at 19:24, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:46 AM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee
> >> <vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Here's the list of Ideas for improvements:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Include the section coverage in the bsp config file.
> >>>     If the section is not found then the script will show
> >>>     proper error showing coverage is not supported for the
> >>>     provided bsp config file.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Update covoar to add support for separate coverage report
> >>>     for each symbol set.
> >>>
> >>> 3. Add a method somewhere in covoar to get the size of an instruction
> >>>     and fix the hard coded size 4 in ObjdumpProcessor.cc
> >>
> >>
> >> What about a single XXX_run command? What about that suggestion?
> >>
> > The suggestion was to turn test_run and coverage_run into a single
> command.
> > I have kept them separate so that there's a possibility to just run the
> > test.
> >
> > If we want to run coverage everytime we run the test. we can do it.
> > Then I think the --coverage option can be changed to --coverage-sets
> > to mention the sets.
> > If that's what we're looking for then I don't think a separate ticket is
> > needed,
> > I can try to do it within tomorrow and submit an updated patch.
> >
> >>
> >> Will there be an update to this patch?
> >>
> > This patch is working an showing results. I don't have any work
> > going related to this patch currently.
> > If there are any suggestions, I'll try to include all the suggested
> updates
> > as soon as possible and submit. So that we can get it merged.
> >
>
> I get confused by the similarity between test_run() and coverage_run()
> names, and now I'm also seeing some confusion because there is a
> function coverage_run() and a class coverage_run. I suggest you remove
> this function coverage_run(), and make either coverage_run.__init__()
> or coverage_run.run() take the executables as a parameter directly.
>
> Thank you for the suggestion. :)
I have removed the function and taken executables as a parameter in
coverage_run.__init__()

I have a question.
The ini file that is fed to covoar is written by the script according to the
symbols mentioned by the user. I haven't include the ini file in the patch.
I'm planning to delete the file after the run, unless --no-clean option is
given,
which currently deletes the .cov trace files after the run.

Can I proceed with this ?
also, shall I include that in the .gitignore ?


> -Gedare
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20180601/da79c3dc/attachment-0002.html>