Re: Git Test Coverage Report (Thurs. June 27)

> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 08:23:49AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> 
>> On 6/28/2019 2:45 AM, Jeff King wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 01:35:17PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>>>
>>>>> t/helper/test-example-decorate.c
>>>>> 0ebbcf70 29) one = lookup_unknown_object(&one_oid);
>>>>> 0ebbcf70 30) two = lookup_unknown_object(&two_oid);
>>>>> 0ebbcf70 59) three = lookup_unknown_object(&three_oid);
>>>>
>>>> Peff: again interesting that these lines you refactored were not covered, especially
>>>> because they are part of a test helper. Perhaps the tests they were intended for are
>>>> now defunct?
>>>
>>> They should be run by t9004 (and if I replace them with a `die`, they
>>> clearly are). Are you sure your coverage script is not mistaken?
>>
>> It looks like I'm missing the 9000+ tests. The following line was in the script
>> I adapted from another CI job:
>>
>> 	rm -f t/t9*.sh
>>
>> This was probably because the job I adapted from needed to run quickly, but for
>> this coverage report we should do the hard work of running whatever t9*.sh tests
>> we can.
> 
> I suspect most of those _are_ low-value. The git-p4 tests, for instance,
> are mostly exercising the p4 script and not our C code, and the same
> with git-svn. However I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few dusty
> corners they manage to hit that aren't covered elsewhere.
> 
> Still, if it's not too painful to add them in time-wise, it probably
> makes sense for the coverage tests to be as exhaustive as possible.