Harri Porten said: > Hi! > > We started publishing code coverage results of Qt 5 unit test runs as > produced by our tool Squish Coco: > > http://download.froglogic.com/public/qt5-squishcoco-report/ (results) > > http://download.froglogic.com/public/effectively-testing-qt5-using-squishcoco/ > (setup and example) > > >From that link you can browse to the coverage data of libraries, functions > and source files. > > We chose a decision/coverage analysis method. In comparison to line > coverage this is a bit harder to grasp and gives different numbers but for > a developer it's the more useful. I plan to follow up with a study of a > small number of exemplaric cases accompanied with suggested patches to > tests and maybe code. And to make things easier to understand in the > mostly-static HTML output we'll also improve the coloring of instrumented > branches soon. > > Provided that the cron job works the results will be updated daily. If > anyone has an idea how this could be integrated more tightly with the > automated Qt project test results please let us know. Caroline Chao was > already using a predecessor of the tool for the same purpose within > the Nokia build infrastructure btw. > > Feedback of any kind is welcome.
Overall the coverage was less than I expected, so I started reading the source files list starting from lowest coverage and found some surprising results, e.g. qmimedata.cpp 0% coverage, qsettings.cpp nearly 0% coverage although I know there are tests for these. In the execution list at http://download.froglogic.com/public/qt5-squishcoco-report/libQtCore.so.5.0.0.html indeed it seems that tst_QSettings, tst_QMimeData are missing from the list :( I suppose there are others missing too. Any idea what might have caused them to be excluded from the results? _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
