Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

use clang for coverage #119

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

oliverlee
Copy link
Collaborator

Use Clang when generating coverage data. It is faster than GCC and
reports higher branch coverage.

Coverage reports are now generated with lcov rules and CI is updated
to use //tools:lcov_list.

Change-Id: I84311f28070a13520684349e8e4ebfb538a7d002

Use Clang when generating coverage data. It is faster than GCC and
reports higher branch coverage.

Coverage reports are now generated with `lcov` rules and CI is updated
to use `//tools:lcov_list`.

Change-Id: I84311f28070a13520684349e8e4ebfb538a7d002
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 24, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (b57b4d1) 97.54% compared to head (3477bff) 81.48%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #119       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   97.54%   81.48%   -16.07%     
===========================================
  Files          15        2       -13     
  Lines         408       54      -354     
  Branches        0        8        +8     
===========================================
- Hits          398       44      -354     
+ Misses         10        6        -4     
- Partials        0        4        +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@oliverlee oliverlee force-pushed the I84311f28070a13520684349e8e4ebfb538a7d002 branch from cbae15d to 3477bff Compare December 24, 2023 03:50
@oliverlee
Copy link
Collaborator Author

test coverage has decreased but I think that was due to a mistake in the target specifications

@oliverlee
Copy link
Collaborator Author

test coverage has decreased but I think that was due to a mistake in the target specifications

this commit now adds branch coverage data which did not exist before. codecov is now considering some lines partially covered when it used to consider them fully covered.

Comment on lines -14 to -19
coverage --strategy=CoverageReport=local
# At least some of this is needed for the coverage tool to work.
coverage --experimental_split_coverage_postprocessing
coverage --experimental_fetch_all_coverage_outputs
coverage --remote_download_outputs=all
coverage --experimental_remote_download_regex=.*/((testlogs/.*/_coverage/.*)|coverage.dat$|_coverage/_coverage_report.dat$)
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we may want to keep these 5 lines

@garymm
Copy link
Owner

garymm commented Dec 25, 2023

#121

@garymm garymm closed this Dec 25, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants