I'll take a look at this. jrg
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Scherkus <[email protected]>wrote: > I think something's busted. If you look at the percent of test code > executed: > http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/perf/linux-debug/coverage/report.html?history=150&header=Linux&graph=PercentCoveredTest > > > <http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/perf/linux-debug/coverage/report.html?history=150&header=Linux&graph=PercentCoveredTest>...the > graph goes down when people check in unit tests, and goes up when people > clean up or modify existing tests. > > If you look to the far left of this graph, you'll notice our test code > coverage jumped from 58% to 72%: > > http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/perf/mac-debug/coverage/report.html?history=300&header=Mac&graph=PercentCoveredTest > > > <http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/perf/mac-debug/coverage/report.html?history=300&header=Mac&graph=PercentCoveredTest>There's > no way the CLs checked in are responsible for that jump. What appears to > have happened was previously non-executing-but-accounted-for tests (like the > ones I checked in) tests all started getting executed. One of many > examples: > > http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/coverage/mac-debug/20419/CHROMIUM/chrome/browser/tabs/index.html > <http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/coverage/mac-debug/20419/CHROMIUM/chrome/browser/tabs/index.html> > http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/coverage/mac-debug/20426/CHROMIUM/chrome/browser/tabs/index.html > > Andrew > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 4:06 PM, John Grabowski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> For starters, thanks for caring about coverage!!!! >> >> It is possible your checkin was timed poorly (didn't land in time for the >> bot >> start), but looking at the coverage scripts I don't see how that could >> happen. >> I noticed you landed, then reverted, this CL the day before. My best >> guess >> is that such an action was enough info for croc to learn the filename and >> "stick", but since you reverted it didn't compile or get run. >> >> Let's wait one more run and see if things fix themselves. >> >> Ping again if the problem continues. >> >> jrg >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Andrew Scherkus >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I think we're getting confused by time zones here. >>> I checked in at Wednesday at 18:26 PST (UTC-7), and assuming the coverage >>> bot is also in my time zone that'd mean these results were generated ~20 >>> minutes afterwards. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Nick Carter <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> The bottom of the link says that "coverage information was generated >>>> Wednesday". Your checkin was Thursday. Would that have something to do >>>> with it? >>>> >>>> - nick >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Scherkus < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> So I checked in a change that did some refactoring and added unit tests >>>>> for two classes that were previously not tested: >>>>> http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=20836 >>>>> >>>>> According to the coverage graphs, that change actually brought both the >>>>> source code and test code coverage *down*. What's interesting is the >>>>> coverage analysis reports my new tests aren't being executed at all: >>>>> >>>>> http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/coverage/linux-debug/20836/CHROMIUM/media/filters/index.html >>>>> >>>>> Now I have no clue who/what process is generating these numbers, but >>>>> maybe it needs to be clobbered. >>>>> >>>>> Andrew >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
