env_process: Refactor QEMU coverage report resetter #4012
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Refactor the piece of code in env_process.preprocess that resetted gcov before running tests or creating VMs. Don't merge it with the postprocess step related to gcov as well, as it would break the order (relative to the process() call) in which they are run. Signed-off-by: Beñat Gartzia Arruabarrena <[email protected]>
|
Hey @YongxueHong, I'd like to know your opinion about this patch. Thanks! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
yet another
env_processpreprocessandpostprocessrefactoring patch. This time it targets the step that resets gcov for qemu if it is configured so.Another option for this piece of code would be to wait until it was time to refactor the
postprocessstep gathering gcov data and generating reports. However, both steps are not in the same level around the_setup_managercalls, which would could cause regressions of some sort. That's the reason why I'm treating each of them separately.ID: 2932