Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: report line coverage instead of function coverage #171

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 23, 2024

Conversation

roypat
Copy link
Collaborator

@roypat roypat commented Oct 23, 2024

It seems that the raw output of llvm-cov changed at some point, and we ended upcomparing functoin coverage instead of line coverage. Fix this by instead using the new json output, which will hopefully prevent such goofs in the future.

Fixes #170
Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy [email protected]

Requirements

Before submitting your PR, please make sure you addressed the following
requirements:

  • All commits in this PR have Signed-Off-By trailers (with
    git commit -s), and the commit message has max 60 characters for the
    summary and max 75 characters for each description line.
  • All added/changed functionality has a corresponding unit/integration
    test.
  • All added/changed public-facing functionality has entries in the "Upcoming
    Release" section of CHANGELOG.md (if no such section exists, please create one).
  • Any newly added unsafe code is properly documented.

It seems that the raw output of llvm-cov changed at some point, and we
ended upcomparing functoin coverage instead of line coverage. Fix this
by instead using the new json output, which will hopefully prevent such
goofs in the future.

Fixes rust-vmm#170
Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy <[email protected]>
@roypat
Copy link
Collaborator Author

roypat commented Oct 23, 2024

Maybe we could also talk about getting rid about these coverage files altogether and instead using codecov.io at some point? We did that at Firecracker a year ago or so

@stefano-garzarella
Copy link
Member

Maybe we could also talk about getting rid about these coverage files altogether and instead using codecov.io at some point? We did that at Firecracker a year ago or so

Yeah, can you open an issue, so if someone has free cycle can look at it.

@roypat
Copy link
Collaborator Author

roypat commented Oct 23, 2024

Maybe we could also talk about getting rid about these coverage files altogether and instead using codecov.io at some point? We did that at Firecracker a year ago or so

Yeah, can you open an issue, so if someone has free cycle can look at it.

I've opened #172 :)

@roypat roypat merged commit 1150c47 into rust-vmm:main Oct 23, 2024
3 checks passed
stefano-garzarella pushed a commit to rust-vmm/vhost that referenced this pull request Oct 25, 2024
Bumps [rust-vmm-ci](https://github.com/rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci) from `209c04e` to `1150c47`.
- [Commits](rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci@209c04e...1150c47)

---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: rust-vmm-ci
  dependency-type: direct:production
...

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <[email protected]>

[SG] Updated coverage score since we fixed its calculation, see
rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci#171

Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>
stefano-garzarella pushed a commit to rust-vmm/vhost that referenced this pull request Oct 25, 2024
Bumps [rust-vmm-ci](https://github.com/rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci) from `209c04e` to `1150c47`.
- [Commits](rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci@209c04e...1150c47)

---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: rust-vmm-ci
  dependency-type: direct:production
...

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <[email protected]>

[SG] Updated coverage score since we fixed its calculation, see
rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci#171

Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>
stefano-garzarella pushed a commit to rust-vmm/vhost-device that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2024
Bumps [rust-vmm-ci](https://github.com/rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci) from `2122417` to `1150c47`.
- [Commits](rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci@2122417...1150c47)

---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: rust-vmm-ci
  dependency-type: direct:production
...

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <[email protected]>

[SG] Updated coverage score since we fixed its calculation, see
rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci#171

Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>
stefano-garzarella pushed a commit to rust-vmm/vhost-device that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2024
Bumps [rust-vmm-ci](https://github.com/rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci) from `2122417` to `1150c47`.
- [Commits](rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci@2122417...1150c47)

---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: rust-vmm-ci
  dependency-type: direct:production
...

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <[email protected]>

[SG] Updated coverage score since we fixed its calculation, see
rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci#171

Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>
stefano-garzarella pushed a commit to rust-vmm/vm-virtio that referenced this pull request Oct 29, 2024
Bumps [rust-vmm-ci](https://github.com/rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci) from `209c04e` to `1150c47`.
- [Commits](rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci@209c04e...1150c47)

---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: rust-vmm-ci
  dependency-type: direct:production
...

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <[email protected]>

[SG] Updated coverage score since we fixed its calculation, see
rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci#171

Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>
epilys pushed a commit to rust-vmm/vm-virtio that referenced this pull request Oct 29, 2024
Bumps [rust-vmm-ci](https://github.com/rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci) from `209c04e` to `1150c47`.
- [Commits](rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci@209c04e...1150c47)

---
updated-dependencies:
- dependency-name: rust-vmm-ci
  dependency-type: direct:production
...

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <[email protected]>

[SG] Updated coverage score since we fixed its calculation, see
rust-vmm/rust-vmm-ci#171

Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Is using "function coverage" metric instead of "line coverage" intended?
3 participants