2017-03-29 23:06 GMT+09:00 Dominique Pellé <[email protected]>:

> Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Christian Brabandt wrote:
> >
> >> On Sa, 25 Mär 2017, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> >>
> >> > > https://github.com/chrisbra/vim/commit/
> 3b79bae9a9d1198b28dc606c9a64b
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.  Let's give that a try.
> >>
> >> That seems to work. I wonder however, why the coverage is less than on
> >> coveralls...
> >
> > Looks like Coveralls is back.  You could compare a file to see where the
> > difference comes from.
>
>
> I compared coveralls and codecov stats for 3 files at random
> (main.c, mbytes.c and normal.c).
>
> main.c
> ========================================================
>            #lines  #relevant  #covered  #missed   %cov
> coveralls  4247    1433       860       635       60.01%
> ========================================================
>            #line    #line     #lines    #lines    %cov
>            tracked  hits      partial   misssed
> codecov    1412     777       0         635       55.02%
> ========================================================
>
>
> mbytes.c
> ========================================================
>            #lines  #relevant  #covered  #missed   %cov
> coveralls  6581    1476       991       602       67.14%
> ========================================================
>            #line    #line     #lines    #lines    %cov
>            tracked  hits      partial   misssed
> codecov    1473     871       0         602       59.13%
> ========================================================
>
>
> normal.c
> ========================================================
>            #lines  #relevant  #covered  #missed   %cov
> coveralls  9627    3917       3115      1102      79.53%
> ========================================================
>            #line    #line     #lines    #lines
>            tracked  hits      partial   misssed   %cov
> codecov    3843     2741      0         1102      71.32%
> ========================================================
>
> All files have different coverage statistics.
>
> The number '#missed lines' in coveralls seem to be
> always be equal to the number '#lines missed' in codecov.
> This is the most important number in my opinion, as it shows
> where we should improve tests.
>
> Other numbers are always different. I would have expected that
> '#relevant' lines in coveralls to be equal to ''#line tracked'
> in codecov but they seem be counting lines different. No idea why
> yet.  I don't think it matters much anyway, as long as we have
> a metric which allows to see improvement to code coverage, and
> as long as they show the same uncovered lines, which
> seems to be the case.
>

Today, following a link given at
https://github.com/vim/vim/pull/857#issuecomment-289990690 (a codecov
report on one of Christian's PRs), I found a page which explains how
codecov calculates those numbers:
https://docs.codecov.io/docs/about-code-coverage .

According to that, the calculations are configurable to some extent.  That
sounds like the digits themselves are not meant to be regarded as absolute,
but are waiting for our own analysis or evaluation on them.

In addition, some explanations why coverage sometimes unexpectedly changes
are given at https://docs.codecov.io/docs/unexpected-coverage-changes and
https://docs.codecov.io/docs/coverage-offset .

I'm wondering if coverall has similar pages explaining their metrics.  If
they have any, that will help us to give an exact comparison between
codecov and coverall.


> I find Codecov web interface nicer and faster to use
> than coveralls.  With coveralls, browsing through source
> files was sometimes jumping up and down for no apparent
> reasons, which was quite annoying. No such problem
> with codecov.
>

Exactly.


>
> Regards
> Dominique
>

Regards
Kazunobu

>
> --
> --
> You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
> Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
> For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "vim_dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
-- 
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Raspunde prin e-mail lui