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

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

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.

-Peff