code-coverage

问题 Consider the following command: gcc -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage main.c It generates the file, main.gcda, which is to be used by gcov, to generate the coverage analysis. So how does main.gcda is generated? How the instrumentation is done? Can I see the instrumented code? 回答1: .gcda is not generated by compiler; it's generated by your program when you execute it. .gcno is the file generated at compilation time and it is the 'note file'. gcc generate a basic block graph notes file (.gcno) for

问题 I it possible to have travis fail if my test don't have enough coverage, say < 90% for example. Normally I run my tests with the following travis config entry. script: - coverage run --source="mytestmodule" setup.py test 回答1: According to this link, if you add the --fail-under switch to the coverage report command, it will exit with a non-zero exit code (which travis will see as a failure) if the code coverage is below the given percentage. That would make the script section of your .travis

问题 We have very complex web based product including solid number of web services etc. I'm trying to collect code coverage for all assemblies in our product using VS 2012 command line utility vstest.console.exe. It is pretty easy to collect code coverage for Unit Tests, however, there is no flag or switch that indicates that I can attach the process to IIS or collect info for web services (both client and server sides). Any suggestions? 回答1: Detailed instructions for collecting code coverage from

问题 I have a an ASP.NET Core 1.0 (previously known as ASP.NET 5) solution with a couple of Class Library (Package)'s and an ASP.NET MVC6 project. I have a test library using the new XUnit 2.0 which supports Core 1.0. However, for some reason my code coverage is producing zero results when running it on all of my tests which are passing. By default, ASP.NET Core 1.0 projects are built in-memory by the runtime and no artifacts are persisted to disk. So in the settings I enabled "Produce all outputs

问题 I am learning the ropes with Unit testing Zend Framework applications. So far I have set up PHPUnit to work with Zend Framework and have started writing some simple Test Cases. My issue is that I am wondering why Code Coverage does not work in spite of being set in the logging tag in my phpunit.xml . I don't get any error but no coverage report is generated. However it works when I run phpunit --coverage <dir> The logging section of my phpunit is as below: <phpunit bootstrap="./application

问题 I am new to coverage and ran into a strange problem. My coverage is taking my virtual environment site packages into account. Here is the output of the coverage run: coverage run test.py .................... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ran 20 tests in 0.060s OK (atcatalog)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -jmfrank63@fullstack-audio-text-catalog:~/workspace (git master) [19:58:45] $ coverage report Name Stmts Miss

问题 As discussed in Open JaCoCo report in Intellij IDEA, when I gather code coverage statistics using Jacoco (rather than native IntelliJ tracing) 0.0% (i.e. "no" coverage) is always shown in the coverage window. This is after I have done the whole "Analyze -> Show coverage data..." and selected my generated "jacoco.exec" file. The same "jacoco.exec" file works fine with other tools such as the Jacoco native report generation task, and with Sonar, and these produce the expected coverage report

问题 During the Coverage.py with Ned Batchelder python&testing podcast, Brian and Ned briefly discussed that, if you need to run tests with coverage, it is preferred to run tests from coverage.py executing the coverage run as opposed to invoking a test runner with coverage. Why is that and what is the difference? To put some context into this: currently I'm using nose test runner and execute the tests with the help of nosetests command-line tool with --with-coverage option: $ nosetests --with

问题 During the Coverage.py with Ned Batchelder python&testing podcast, Brian and Ned briefly discussed that, if you need to run tests with coverage, it is preferred to run tests from coverage.py executing the coverage run as opposed to invoking a test runner with coverage. Why is that and what is the difference? To put some context into this: currently I'm using nose test runner and execute the tests with the help of nosetests command-line tool with --with-coverage option: $ nosetests --with

问题 During the Coverage.py with Ned Batchelder python&testing podcast, Brian and Ned briefly discussed that, if you need to run tests with coverage, it is preferred to run tests from coverage.py executing the coverage run as opposed to invoking a test runner with coverage. Why is that and what is the difference? To put some context into this: currently I'm using nose test runner and execute the tests with the help of nosetests command-line tool with --with-coverage option: $ nosetests --with