[cmake-developers] Support for coverage.py coverage on the topic stage

Rolf Eike Beer eike at sf-mail.de
Mon Sep 30 11:24:00 EDT 2013


Am 30.09.2013 16:45, schrieb Bill Hoffman:
> On 9/28/2013 5:36 AM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>> Break if everything is fine, continue on error or when no files are 
>> found? All
>> other handlers support being run in parallel, why not Bullseye?
> Not really.
> 
> Return 0 if COVFILE is not set so, no coverage.
> 
> Return 0 if COVFILE is set but there was nothing in the DB pointed to
> by COVFILE, basically no coverage.
> 
> This is the same thing that gcov and the other handlers do.  If you
> don't find any coverage files move on to the next coverage type and
> try that.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by parallel?

For all other handlers it may happen that more than one coverage db is 
found in the build tree and they would both be used. This is really 
useful, e.g. if you want to have coverage for both C and Python code. 
This will not work with the BullsEye handler involved. I think it would 
be best if that would be refactored to have the same return values as 
the other handlers. The file_count isn't really needed as file_count in 
cmCTestCoverageHandler::ProcessHandler(), at least not in the first 
half. It's just a marker "has anything been processed at all" there, so 
it doesn't matter if the bullseye method returns 1 or the correct file 
count there.

Eike



More information about the cmake-developers mailing list