783faedd65
We have coverage targets in our Makefile for using gcov to display line coverage based on our test suite. The way I like to do it is to run: make coverage-test make coverage-report This leaves the repo in a state where every X.c file that was covered has an X.c.gcov file containing the coverage counts for every line, and "#####" at every uncovered line. There have been a few bugs in recent patches what would have been caught if the test suite covered those blocks (including a few of mine). I want to work towards a "sensible" amount of coverage on new topics. In my opinion, this means that any logic should be covered, but the 'die()' blocks covering very unlikely (or near-impossible) situations may not warrant coverage. It is important to not measure the coverage of the codebase by what old code is not covered. To help, I created the 'contrib/coverage-diff.sh' script. After creating the coverage statistics at a version (say, 'topic') you can then run contrib/coverage-diff.sh base topic to see the lines added between 'base' and 'topic' that are not covered by the test suite. The output uses 'git blame -s' format so you can find the commits responsible and view the line numbers for quick access to the context, but trims leading tabs in the file contents to reduce output width. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> |
||
---|---|---|
.. | ||
buildsystems | ||
coccinelle | ||
completion | ||
contacts | ||
credential | ||
diff-highlight | ||
emacs | ||
examples | ||
fast-import | ||
git-jump | ||
git-shell-commands | ||
hg-to-git | ||
hooks | ||
long-running-filter | ||
mw-to-git | ||
persistent-https | ||
remote-helpers | ||
stats | ||
subtree | ||
svn-fe | ||
thunderbird-patch-inline | ||
update-unicode | ||
vscode | ||
workdir | ||
coverage-diff.sh | ||
git-resurrect.sh | ||
README | ||
remotes2config.sh | ||
rerere-train.sh |
Contributed Software Although these pieces are available as part of the official git source tree, they are in somewhat different status. The intention is to keep interesting tools around git here, maybe even experimental ones, to give users an easier access to them, and to give tools wider exposure, so that they can be improved faster. I am not expecting to touch these myself that much. As far as my day-to-day operation is concerned, these subdirectories are owned by their respective primary authors. I am willing to help if users of these components and the contrib/ subtree "owners" have technical/design issues to resolve, but the initiative to fix and/or enhance things _must_ be on the side of the subtree owners. IOW, I won't be actively looking for bugs and rooms for enhancements in them as the git maintainer -- I may only do so just as one of the users when I want to scratch my own itch. If you have patches to things in contrib/ area, the patch should be first sent to the primary author, and then the primary author should ack and forward it to me (git pull request is nicer). This is the same way as how I have been treating gitk, and to a lesser degree various foreign SCM interfaces, so you know the drill. I expect that things that start their life in the contrib/ area to graduate out of contrib/ once they mature, either by becoming projects on their own, or moving to the toplevel directory. On the other hand, I expect I'll be proposing removal of disused and inactive ones from time to time. If you have new things to add to this area, please first propose it on the git mailing list, and after a list discussion proves there are some general interests (it does not have to be a list-wide consensus for a tool targeted to a relatively narrow audience -- for example I do not work with projects whose upstream is svn, so I have no use for git-svn myself, but it is of general interest for people who need to interoperate with SVN repositories in a way git-svn works better than git-svnimport), submit a patch to create a subdirectory of contrib/ and put your stuff there. -jc