On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 08:23:49AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 6/28/2019 2:45 AM, Jeff King wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 01:35:17PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > > > >>> t/helper/test-example-decorate.c > >>> 0ebbcf70 29) one = lookup_unknown_object(&one_oid); > >>> 0ebbcf70 30) two = lookup_unknown_object(&two_oid); > >>> 0ebbcf70 59) three = lookup_unknown_object(&three_oid); > >> > >> Peff: again interesting that these lines you refactored were not covered, especially > >> because they are part of a test helper. Perhaps the tests they were intended for are > >> now defunct? > > > > They should be run by t9004 (and if I replace them with a `die`, they > > clearly are). Are you sure your coverage script is not mistaken? > > It looks like I'm missing the 9000+ tests. The following line was in the script > I adapted from another CI job: > > rm -f t/t9*.sh > > This was probably because the job I adapted from needed to run quickly, but for > this coverage report we should do the hard work of running whatever t9*.sh tests > we can. I suspect most of those _are_ low-value. The git-p4 tests, for instance, are mostly exercising the p4 script and not our C code, and the same with git-svn. However I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few dusty corners they manage to hit that aren't covered elsewhere. Still, if it's not too painful to add them in time-wise, it probably makes sense for the coverage tests to be as exhaustive as possible. -Peff
