luc14n0/glib
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib.git synced 2024-11-05 17:06:18 +01:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
0b64bb2204
glib/.lcovrc

16 lines
703 B
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

ci: Add lcov configuration to ignore g_return_*if_fail()/g_assert*() While we can’t add markers to the macro implementations to cause lcov to ignore them automatically, we can change our lcov configuration to ignore all calls to them. See https://github.com/linux-test-project/lcov/issues/44. This causes all the un-takeable branches and un-reachable assertions to be ignored by our code coverage, which bumps our statistics: • Lines: 74.9% → 74.8% • Functions: 82.3% → 82.3% • Branches: 53.3% → 64.2% The rationale is that nobody should be testing programmer error handling, as g_return_*if_fail() are used to guard against — so it’s not reasonable to count missed branches like that in code coverage statistics. Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <withnall@endlessm.com>
2018-10-03 15:47:26 +02:00
# lcov and genhtml configuration
build: Ignore branches in g_clear_*() functions under lcov It’s not useful for lcov to demand branch coverage of all branches within `g_clear_*()` functions (such as `g_clear_pointer()`). By choosing to use `g_clear_*()`, the programmer explicitly doesn’t care about whether the pointer is `NULL`. The tests shouldn’t have to either. Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <pwithnall@gnome.org>
2024-01-18 14:06:10 +01:00
# See lcovrc(5)
ci: Add lcov configuration to ignore g_return_*if_fail()/g_assert*() While we can’t add markers to the macro implementations to cause lcov to ignore them automatically, we can change our lcov configuration to ignore all calls to them. See https://github.com/linux-test-project/lcov/issues/44. This causes all the un-takeable branches and un-reachable assertions to be ignored by our code coverage, which bumps our statistics: • Lines: 74.9% → 74.8% • Functions: 82.3% → 82.3% • Branches: 53.3% → 64.2% The rationale is that nobody should be testing programmer error handling, as g_return_*if_fail() are used to guard against — so it’s not reasonable to count missed branches like that in code coverage statistics. Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <withnall@endlessm.com>
2018-10-03 15:47:26 +02:00
# Always enable branch coverage
lcov_branch_coverage = 1
# Exclude precondition assertions, as we can never reasonably get full branch
# coverage of them, as they should never normally fail.
build: Ignore branches in g_clear_*() functions under lcov It’s not useful for lcov to demand branch coverage of all branches within `g_clear_*()` functions (such as `g_clear_pointer()`). By choosing to use `g_clear_*()`, the programmer explicitly doesn’t care about whether the pointer is `NULL`. The tests shouldn’t have to either. Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <pwithnall@gnome.org>
2024-01-18 14:06:10 +01:00
# Similarly exclude g_clear_*() functions (such as g_clear_object(),
# g_clear_pointer(), etc.) as it’s not useful to test both sides of the branch
# in them.
ci: Add lcov configuration to ignore g_return_*if_fail()/g_assert*() While we can’t add markers to the macro implementations to cause lcov to ignore them automatically, we can change our lcov configuration to ignore all calls to them. See https://github.com/linux-test-project/lcov/issues/44. This causes all the un-takeable branches and un-reachable assertions to be ignored by our code coverage, which bumps our statistics: • Lines: 74.9% → 74.8% • Functions: 82.3% → 82.3% • Branches: 53.3% → 64.2% The rationale is that nobody should be testing programmer error handling, as g_return_*if_fail() are used to guard against — so it’s not reasonable to count missed branches like that in code coverage statistics. Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <withnall@endlessm.com>
2018-10-03 15:47:26 +02:00
# See https://github.com/linux-test-project/lcov/issues/44
build: Ignore branches in g_clear_*() functions under lcov It’s not useful for lcov to demand branch coverage of all branches within `g_clear_*()` functions (such as `g_clear_pointer()`). By choosing to use `g_clear_*()`, the programmer explicitly doesn’t care about whether the pointer is `NULL`. The tests shouldn’t have to either. Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <pwithnall@gnome.org>
2024-01-18 14:06:10 +01:00
lcov_excl_br_line = LCOV_EXCL_BR_LINE|g_return_if_fail|g_return_val_if_fail|g_assert|g_assert_|g_clear_
ci: Add lcov configuration to ignore g_return_*if_fail()/g_assert*() While we can’t add markers to the macro implementations to cause lcov to ignore them automatically, we can change our lcov configuration to ignore all calls to them. See https://github.com/linux-test-project/lcov/issues/44. This causes all the un-takeable branches and un-reachable assertions to be ignored by our code coverage, which bumps our statistics: • Lines: 74.9% → 74.8% • Functions: 82.3% → 82.3% • Branches: 53.3% → 64.2% The rationale is that nobody should be testing programmer error handling, as g_return_*if_fail() are used to guard against — so it’s not reasonable to count missed branches like that in code coverage statistics. Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <withnall@endlessm.com>
2018-10-03 15:47:26 +02:00
# Similarly for unreachable assertions.
lcov_excl_line = LCOV_EXCL_LINE|g_return_if_reached|g_return_val_if_reached|g_assert_not_reached
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink