Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2009, #05; Mon, 16)

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Feb 17, 2009, 14:12 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0902171509010.6185@intel-tinevez-2-302>
In-Reply-To: <200902171204.20184.trast@student.ethz.ch>

Hi,

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Thomas Rast wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Jakub Narebski wrote:
> > > * tr/gcov (Sun Feb 15 23:25:45 2009 +0100) 8 commits
> > >  - Test git-patch-id
> > >  - Test rev-list --parents/--children
> > >  - Test log --decorate
> > >  - Test fsck a bit harder
> > >  - Test log --graph
> > >  - Test diff --dirstat functionality
> > >  - Test that diff can read from stdin
> > >  - Support coverage testing with GCC/gcov
> > 
> > Hmmmm... wouldn't it be nice to have more tests?
> 
> I was hoping the coverage patch would give people an incentive to
> write some ;-)
> 
> Seriously, the list is huge.

Well, judging from your patch-id example, I am somewhat doubtful: the meat of patch-id is exercized in the --cherry-pick patches.

IMHO the biggest shortcoming of gcov is that it cannot distinguish between functions that need thorough testing and functions which don't.

Don't get me wrong, I do not want to downplay the importance of tr/gcov, I'd like to have it in git.git, but just making tests for all the uncovered functions would just make a full test run longer, for dubitable value.

Ciao, Dscho