Re: Git Test Coverage Report (Thursday, Aug 15)

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:01:04PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:

Are the scripts you use to generate these available somewhere?

I think it's useful to look at uncovered code, but I often struggle to figure out whether the parts attached to my name are relevant. In particular, I think two changes to the report format might help:

  1. Include names alongside commit ids when listing uncovered lines. I
     know that will end up with some overly-long lines, but it makes it
     easy to grep for one's name to find relevant sections of the file
     (as opposed to finding your name at the bottom and
     cross-referencing with actual content lines).

     Seeing that an uncovered line is a BUG(), for example, makes it
     easy to know that it's not really an interesting uncovered case in
     the code.

  2. Include more context. Just taking a random example from this email:

We know what the uncovered line was trying to do, but more interesting is likely the conditional that causes it to be uncovered. In this case the surrounding code is:

          if (opts->ignore_whitespace) {
                  struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
  
                  if (strategy_opts)
                          strbuf_addstr(&buf, strategy_opts);
  
                  strbuf_addstr(&buf, " --ignore-space-change");
                  free(strategy_opts);
                  strategy_opts = strbuf_detach(&buf, NULL);
          }

even the usual 3 lines of diff context would make it a lot quicker to understand what's going on (it only kicks in when multiple strategy options are used).

(As an aside, this code leaks the newly allocated buffer and leaves a dangling pointer in opts->strategy_opts, but that's all orthogonal to the uncovered line; I'll send a separate message to the original author).

Anyway, I wonder if we could adjust the output of the script to make reading it that way a bit easier.

-Peff