[PATCH] Generate coverage analysis Report

[Joel Sherrill]

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, 9:54 PM Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:

>
> On 31/5/18 6:44 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote:
> > On 31 May 2018 at 02:02, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org <mailto:
> joel at rtems.org>>
> > wrote:
> >     On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee
> >     <vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com <mailto:vijaykumar9597 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >         On 31 May 2018 at 00:28, Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org
> >         <mailto:joel at rtems.org>> wrote:
> >             I may not understand correctly but there is test_run and
> >             coverage_run. Someone
> >             suggested making coverage_running an option to test_run. If
> that's
> >             what's being
> >             asked for, then I think doing it in a follow up patch is OK.
> >
> >             If that's the intended request, perhaps a ticket should be
> filed.
> >
> >
> >         Sorry for all the confusion.
> >         This patch doesn't change the way test works. It only adds an
> option to run
> >         the coverage script. coverage_run just runs the
> coverage.coverage_run
> >
> >
> >     :) And I am saying if we want to have one test_run with an argument,
> do it as
> >     a future work iteration. File a ticket.
> >
> >     We need to get the code working on the master.
> >
> > Okay, we can keep that as a future work (I haven't thought about it
> though). :)
> > Getting it to work on master is our primary objective.
> >
>
> Was a ticket raised to removing 'coverage_run' and to use 'test_run'?
>

I haven't seen tickets for any of the issues we identified.

>
> Chris
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20180605/08ecd6c2/attachment-0002.html>