[PATCH] Generate coverage analysis Report

[Vijay Kumar Banerjee]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, 08:31 Joel Sherrill, <joel at rtems.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
was there supposed to be tickets for each issue?

>
>> Chris
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20180606/fe84b4d8/attachment-0002.html>