Re: Increasing code-coverage of 'make check'

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От robins
Тема Re: Increasing code-coverage of 'make check'
Дата
Msg-id CAEP4nAwnMZtQA6v-2-2Bjd4QEio4580M_HX9j=QJySY+qMM_ag@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Increasing code-coverage of 'make check'  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Thanks Alvaro!

The thought of psql_help purely because it was the easiest at that time. Since I've just begun my understanding of the code is barely negligible. 

I began working on SEQUENCE related tests thereafter and hopefully would move to more complicated tests in time. Peter's link is obviously helpful but since I end up doing make check ~100 of times a day, for now its useful only to cross-check how much code is uncommitted :)

Robins


On 11 March 2013 09:16, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

I think increasing coverage is a good thing.  But psql help?  *shrug*
backend code is far more interesting and useful.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are some corner cases that
are interesting to test that might not necessarily show up in a coverage
chart -- for example how stuff behaves in the face of concurrent
processes, or when various counters wrap around.

Peter Eisentraut has set up a Jenkins instance that publishes coverage
info.
http://pgci.eisentraut.org/jenkins/job/postgresql_master_coverage/Coverage/
(I think he only has it running "make check"; doing the isolation tests
probably raises percentages a bit).


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Ants Aasma
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Using indexes for partial index builds
Следующее
От: Luma
Дата:
Сообщение: TupleTable like data structure