From 02c535f4ff5c52800675fb9e753d80ca3e1dfc7d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Remi Gacogne Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 12:03:53 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Code coverage: Apply Fred's suggestions (thanks!) --- CODE_COVERAGE.md | 6 +++--- pdns/coverage.cc | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/CODE_COVERAGE.md b/CODE_COVERAGE.md index 555cdffc54..4b1a471f5b 100644 --- a/CODE_COVERAGE.md +++ b/CODE_COVERAGE.md @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ Code Coverage ------------- -PowerDNS uses [coveralls](https://coveralls.io/) to generate code coverage reports from our Continuous Integration tests. The resulting analysis can then be consulted [online](https://coveralls.io/github/PowerDNS/pdns), and gives hindsight into which parts of the code are automatically tested. +PowerDNS uses [coveralls](https://coveralls.io/) to generate code coverage reports from our Continuous Integration tests. The resulting analysis can then be consulted [online](https://coveralls.io/github/PowerDNS/pdns), and gives insight into which parts of the code are automatically tested. -Code coverage is generated during our Continuous Integration tests, for every pull requests and pushs. In addition to the dashboard on coveralls's website, a summary is posted on pull requests. +Code coverage is generated during our Continuous Integration tests, for every pull request. In addition to the dashboard on Coveralls' website, a summary is posted on pull requests. # Technical Details @@ -73,5 +73,5 @@ It is possible to generate a code coverage report without going through the CI, # Remaining Tasks -The way our code coverage report is generated does not currently handle very well the multiple tools that are generated during the authoritative server build, and end up in the `pdns-tools` package. Consequently the coverage report for these tools, and the related code parts, is not accurate. +The way our code coverage report is generated does not currently handle the different authoritative server tools (that end up in the `pdns-tools` package) very well. Consequently the coverage report for these tools, and the related code parts, is not accurate. It is likely possible to pass several `--object ` options to `llvm-cov` when processing the `.profdata` file. diff --git a/pdns/coverage.cc b/pdns/coverage.cc index 71fcda4b07..3cbfa40424 100644 --- a/pdns/coverage.cc +++ b/pdns/coverage.cc @@ -25,10 +25,10 @@ #ifdef COVERAGE extern "C" { - //NOLINTNEXTLINE(bugprone-reserved-identifier): not ours + // NOLINTNEXTLINE(bugprone-reserved-identifier): not ours void __gcov_dump(void); #ifdef CLANG_COVERAGE - //NOLINTNEXTLINE(bugprone-reserved-identifier): not ours + // NOLINTNEXTLINE(bugprone-reserved-identifier): not ours int __llvm_profile_write_file(void); #endif /* CLANG_COVERAGE */ } -- 2.47.2