Re: Try-based code coverage results

On 7/11/2014 5:59 PM, cdaw...@mozilla.com wrote: Hi Joshua-- I work on the Treeherder dev team. Would you be up for > writing a few bugs against Treeherder on what you found? Here’s a > link to do so: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Tree%20Management I did talk to people

Re: Try-based code coverage results

On Friday, July 11, 2014 3:59:41 PM UTC-7, cda...@mozilla.com wrote: > On Monday, July 7, 2014 4:44:50 PM UTC-7, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: > > > On 7/7/2014 5:25 PM, Jonathan Griffin wrote: > > > > > > > Filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1035464 for those > > > > > > > that w

Re: Try-based code coverage results

On Monday, July 7, 2014 4:44:50 PM UTC-7, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: > On 7/7/2014 5:25 PM, Jonathan Griffin wrote: > > > Filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1035464 for those > > > that would like to follow along. > > > > Perhaps bug 890116 is a better measure of tracking. > >

Re: Try-based code coverage results

On 7/7/2014 5:25 PM, Jonathan Griffin wrote: Filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1035464 for those that would like to follow along. Perhaps bug 890116 is a better measure of tracking. -- Joshua Cranmer Thunderbird and DXR developer Source code archæologist _

Re: Try-based code coverage results

Filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1035464 for those that would like to follow along. Jonathan On 7/7/2014 3:22 PM, Jonathan Griffin wrote: So it sounds like it would be valuable to add try syntax to trigger this, as well as produce periodic reports. Most of the work needed

Re: Try-based code coverage results

So it sounds like it would be valuable to add try syntax to trigger this, as well as produce periodic reports. Most of the work needed is the same. I'll file a bug to track this; I don't have an ETA for starting work on it, but we want to get to it before things bitrot. Jonathan On 7/7/20

Re: Try-based code coverage results

On 7/7/2014 1:11 PM, Jonathan Griffin wrote: I guess a related question is, if we could run this periodically on TBPL, what would be the right frequency? Several years ago, I did a project where I ran code-coverage on roughly every nightly build of Thunderbird [1] (and I still have those resu

Re: Try-based code coverage results

This looks awesome, Joshua! Thanks for doing this. CCing Sylvestre who has also started to look into this... Cheers, Ehsan On 2014-07-07, 1:02 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: I don't know how many people follow code-coverage updates in general, but I've produced relatively up-to-date code cover

Re: Try-based code coverage results

On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jonathan Griffin wrote: > I guess a related question is, if we could run this periodically on TBPL, > what would be the right frequency? > > We could potentially create a job in buidlbot that would handle the > downloading/post-processing, which might be a bit fas

Re: Try-based code coverage results

I guess a related question is, if we could run this periodically on TBPL, what would be the right frequency? We could potentially create a job in buidlbot that would handle the downloading/post-processing, which might be a bit faster than doing it on an external system. Jonathan On 7/7/2014

Re: Try-based code coverage results

On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: > Effectively, only xpcshell tests, and the M, M-e10s, and R groups are > represented in the output data. M-e10s is slightly borked: only M-e10s(1) > [I think] is shown, because, well, treeherder didn't distinguish between > the five of the

Re: Try-based code coverage results

On 7/7/2014 11:39 AM, Jonathan Griffin wrote: Hey Joshua, That's awesome! How long does the try run take that generated this data? We should consider scheduling a periodic job to collect this data and track it over time. Well, it depends on how overloaded try is at the moment. ^_^ The bui

Re: Try-based code coverage results

Hey Joshua, That's awesome! How long does the try run take that generated this data? We should consider scheduling a periodic job to collect this data and track it over time. Jonathan On 7/6/2014 10:02 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: I don't know how many people follow code-coverage updates in

Try-based code coverage results

I don't know how many people follow code-coverage updates in general, but I've produced relatively up-to-date code coverage results based on , and they may be found here: . In contrast to earlier v