Hi, Ive modified the cmdline that generates the reports to filter out the unwanted directories from the output. Also, ive modified the wiki page that describes the procedure to reflect this change. Please note some tests still fail (see other thread), so the code that should be executed by those tests is still shown as 'not hit' in this report. Report: http://lbalbalba.x90x.net/lcov/glusterfs/ Wiki page: https://forge.gluster.org/glusterfs-core/pages/Code_Coverage Regards, John Smith. On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Vijay Bellur <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/18/2013 08:05 PM, John Smith wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> Ah, thanks, I was looking in the wrong place. I was worried that he >> results was invalid there for a moment. >> >> Perhaps the directory '/usr/local/glusterfs/*' should be filtered out >> of the report entirely ? > > > Yes, filtering that out could help. > > Thanks, > Vijay > > >> >> >> Thanks again, >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> John Smith. >> >> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Vijay Bellur <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 05/17/2013 02:01 AM, John Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> Im not quite sure what im seeing here, but ... >>>> >>>> the prove test './tests/basic/posixonly.t' should test, well, posix ;). >>>> >>>> and yet the gcov report says its not being hit: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://lbalbalba.x90x.net/lcov/glusterfs/usr/local/glusterfs/lib/glusterfs/3git/xlator/storage/posix.c.gcov.html >>>> >>>> Does anyone who has a deeper understanding of both the codebase and >>>> the test know if that test should indeed hit that file ? If so, the >>>> report is wrong. And if not, the test may need to be changed. >>>> >>> >>> The test should indeed hit posix.c. Wouldn't this be indicative of what >>> lines were covered by this test: >>> >>> >>> http://lbalbalba.x90x.net/lcov/glusterfs/xlators/storage/posix/src/posix.c.gcov.html >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Vijay >>> >> >> >
