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

Vijay Kumar Banerjee vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 4 19:29:11 UTC 2018 

On 5 June 2018 at 00:51, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee <
> vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5 June 2018 at 00:31, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I will add that covoar was originally designed to generate a report on
>>> one
>>> set at a time. The iteration over symbol sets was done at the scripting
>>> level above that.
>>>
>>> This had the advantage of being simple at the time. It may still be
>>> simple
>>> but moving the iteration over sets to covoar will probably be faster.
>>>
>>> I think DesiredSymbols is instanced a single time. As a starting point,
>>> there
>>> would have to be multiple instances of this -- one for each symbol set.
>>>
>>> Beyond that, there is a correlation between the report generated and
>>> the desired symbols set.
>>>
>>> So I am thinking that we need to define a "context" structure for each
>>> set. One simple thought is that there is one "master/unified"
>>> DesiredSymbol
>>> set under the hood and the symbols in each set are used as a filter
>>> when generating reports. So process the executables for every symbol
>>> but generate the report subdirectories based on one of the sets of
>>> DesiredSymbols.
>>>
>>> I think that should work.
>>>
>>> Cillian.. you have been through the flow. Am I thinking right that it is
>>>
>>> And I think we need to merge before doing this type of work. If we can
>>> process
>>> a single set correctly, that's a baseline. Adding iteration will be
>>> easier to review
>>> as another patch.
>>>
>>>
>> we can process a single set correctly.
>> Shall we proceed with merging the above patch with the suggested small
>> edits
>> and then file a ticket for the iteration and then start working on it ?
>>
>
> Please.
>
>>
>> I am confused with running of coverage for multiple bsp. If a single
>> report.html has to show the reports of multiple bsps (as hinted by
>> Cillian)
>> Then a lot of rewroking would be needed. If we're headed in that way
>> then I think making separate report.html like leon3-report.html would be
>> simpler
>> to achieve, and then create a master index.html for listing all the
>> report htmls.
>>
>
> A single run of the tester will test a single BSP. If you open two shell
> windows
> and run the tester in both, will those collide?
>
> In it's current state. Yes, it will collide as all the names of files
(including report.html)
are constant. :(

> covoar does not need support internally to process multiple BSPs
> concurrently.
>
> It is common practice to build and test multiple BSPs in parallel to take
> advantage
> of machines with many cores.
>
> But if you aren't careful, you can't even have two build/test trees at the
> same time
> if they collide on file names in shared directories.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
>
>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Cillian O'Donnell <cpodonnell8 at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4 June 2018 at 19:03, Vijay Kumar Banerjee <vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2 June 2018 at 01:00, Vijay Kumar Banerjee <
>>>>> vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 June 2018 at 00:48, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Added. Thanks. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ini file I'm talking about is the symbol sets config file not
>>>>>> the bsp
>>>>>> config file. yes the name is constant. Should it be unique to the bsp
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>> something like, leon3-symbols.ini ?
>>>>>> How does the automated testing work?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it is needed then I have a fix in mind. I can take the bsp name
>>>>>> and add
>>>>>> '-symbols.ini' to it. and add *-symbols.ini to .gitignore .
>>>>>>
>>>>> Shall I add this or put a fixme in the code and post a patch ?
>>>>> Are there any other suggestions for the patch ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was looking into covoar for generating separate reports for each
>>>>> symbolset.
>>>>> Seems like  all the coverage reports are generated together and are
>>>>> written
>>>>> in the _outputDirectory_ .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The output directory should be aligned with the bsp and the report.html
>>>> changed to keep record of this instead of searching for the generic
>>>> coverage dir. Look for leon3-coverage and so on. As well as the
>>>> symbol-sets.ini change you mentioned above. That would probably be enough
>>>> to not cause any conflicts with parallel testing (I may be missing a case
>>>> there, I let you know if anything else comes to mind). The main thing to
>>>> think about is if multiple bsps are being tested at the same time, they
>>>> have to know which config file is there's and which output directory and
>>>> whatever else they may be looking for, the names have to be unique. These
>>>> things are all fed to covoar so the changes can be added to coverage.py.
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't figure out how to cleanly address this.
>>>>> If covoar is intended to generate reports from multiple
>>>>> subsystems/symbolsets,
>>>>> then I think this would be a needed update. Otherwise we can do it
>>>>> from the
>>>>> script, by feeding covoar with a single set ini and putting the result
>>>>> in a separate
>>>>> directory .
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we do this ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Gedare
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>> devel at rtems.org
>>>>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20180605/4d3e54b2/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the devel mailing list