> Before I get too deep into an implementation, I'd like to poll the group about > how you would use this feature and like it to behave. My thoughts and plans follow. > > For the coverage summary, the numbers represent actual coverage, but the colors > are based upon actual coverage + analysis. So it's possible to have (e.g.) a > green 66.7 in the 'cond' column. Tooltips have changed from "N / T" (covered > paths / total paths) to "T paths: N covered, M analyzed".
that sounds like a great approach. something didn't feel quite right about messing with the actual numbers. > The only thing I don't like about this approach is that some of the data is > available only in the tooltips, which of course don't print. Do people make > hardcopies of these reports? If so, would you want the extra data in them? sorry I need this kind of explanation, but what are the tooltips? >>Michael has some ideas for backends and interfaces to the uncoverable code, >>which I'll let him talk about or work on as he sees fit. > > > I plan to get the backend working before I start messing with the UI. > > CGI would be the slickest -- you could do everything from the report. But that > would require a webserver, which I'm loathe to do. (I may relent if anyone knows > of a small, simple, lightweight pure-perl server that could be started/stopped > as needed.) yeah, it would be great to be able to click on the report itself, but a webserver probably isn't the best idea. > > My current plan is to create a command-line based tool for entering the data, > and provide a Tk app as a wrapper. The intent would be for people to use the Tk > interface with the command-line interface provided for those unable/unwilling to > install Tk or in case someone wants a scriptable interface. having both is a good idea. if the underlying file were to stay in human-readable format that would also be great. personally, it took me a while to grok the format, and just when I thought I had it it I couldn't get it to work anyway with my code :) --Geoff
