I never used that, but it seems coverage can only deal with single threaded code, which sounds logical. No ?
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 10:53, Skip Lentz <skip.le...@inria.fr> wrote: > > Hi, > > When I want to run the coverage of for example Zinc’s Client and Server tests, > it will either hang (in the case of Zinc’s test cases) or fail because the > coverage > uses BlockClosure>>valueUnpreemptively for running the tests. > The relevant method is TestRunner>>collectCoverageFor:. > > So when a test is run, it is not able to be preempted by another process, > like for > example a local server which is needed to run the actual test in Zinc’s case. > > When I use BlockClosure>>valueUninterruptably it works. Can someone tell me > if it is wrong to use that instead? Is valueUnpreemptively necessary in this > case, > and if so, why? > > To reproduce: Load fresh image, select Zinc's ZnClientTests and ZnServerTests, > click on “Run Coverage” -> hanging image. > > Thanks, > > Skip
