On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Stephan Bergmann <sberg...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/19/2012 09:14 PM, John Smith wrote: >> >> - First you run a plain make in the top level directory to build LO >> (with analysis stuff enabled). >> - then you create a 'baseline' with lcov (sort of create a 'before >> snapshot' of LO) >> - *then* you run all your tests (whatever they may be) >> - then you re-run lcov to create an 'after snapshot' >> - then you compare the 'before' and 'after' snapshots, and you can >> tell what code was actually executed and therefore tested by your >> tests. > > > Call me dumb, but what I don't understand is why you want to have the > difference between the before and after snapshots, rather than the plain > after snapshot. > Dont ask me, Im just doing what 'man lcov (1)' told me to do here. ;)
> > Do you want to filter out any code that is executed "by accident" (as it > belongs to tools we build and already execute at build time, say) rather > than by dedicated tests? > I guess gcov/lcov assume that there is a difference between a.) strictly compiling your project and b.) running tests on your compiled project I guess thats just how the tool was designed to function, and the approach that I took. > > In a sense, even during the tests, very much of our code is executed "by > accident" rather than due to dedicated test code calling it: Especially the > subsequentcheck stuff contains checks that are not simple unit tests, but > start of a complete soffice.bin process, causing "unintended" testing of > large parts of the infrastructure code anyway. > Whether code gets tested 'unintended' or not during your 'tests' is really not relevant, is it ? Only if the code gets executed or not ? Regards, John Smith. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice