> Maybe it should only lock the threads that were _not_ started by the > “test thread”? I’m not even sure that is possible, > just suggesting things. >
Have a look at Niall Ross' XProc Patterns. They do the same by - AFAIK - intercepting process creation and checking whether the creating process is one of the "tests threads". HTH, Jan > > On Jan 12, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> > > wrote: > > > > The coverage seems to be implemented by 'locking' the current > > execution thread exclusively, which would mean no other threads can > > run, at all. So code depending on multi threading, like > > client/server code, like HTTP, cannot work. Yes that seems to be a > > limitation, but an understandable one. > > > > I am trying to help but I don't known anything about the coverage > > tool, so maybe I should shut up ;-) > > > > > On 12 Jan 2016, at 11:05, Skip Lentz <skip.le...@inria.fr> wrote: > > > > > > You mean as in it can check the coverage effected by the code > > > running in the other thread? > > > Or is this not what you mean? > > > > > > Well I mean, at least it can show the coverage done by what was > > > run in the same thread.. > > > And it will at least not hang or fail. > > > > > > > On Jan 12, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx. > > > > eu> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
