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

[Joel Sherrill]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 11:21 AM Vijay Kumar Banerjee <vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>

That makes sense.


> Can I proceed with this ?
>

Yes.

> also, shall I include that in the .gitignore ?
>

Is the name of the file constant? The same across multiple BSPs? If so,
then this will be a problem doing automated testing of multiple BSPs in
parallel.

I think the name needs to be unique enough.to support running testing with
coverage on multiple BSPs in parallel. That means you can't add it to
gitignore. And can add another issue and FIXME to the code.

>
>
>> -Gedare
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20180601/8ae29062/attachment-0002.html>