On Fri, 18 May 2018, 07:46 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2018, 11:52 Cillian O'Donnell, <cpodonne...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 17 May 2018, 21:32 Vijay Kumar Banerjee, < >> vijaykumar9...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> hello, >>> >>> I have attached the html report ! >>> >> >> Report looks good! Well done. Was that just for samples. Did the other >> sections appear in the report if you click through the links? >> > yes it was for samples and yes the links are working > Cool, you should run it for the full testsuite and take a look at that report (takes a while.. around 575 tests) > >> Well it looks good but I hardcoded the paths, at least that gave the >>> proper idea of what exactly needs to be done. Now I understand why >>> --rtems-builddir stayed there for a long time , it makes the job simple . >>> >>> Here's a point that needs discussion : >>> >>> 1. the coverage.py in it's current state(before the updates I made >>> today) tries to parse the score-symbols.ini file (class >>> symbols_configuration()) , which is not needed after the recent updates to >>> covoar which makes it work from covoar itself. I have just removed that >>> class for now . >>> >> >> Yeah there could definitely be some sections that might be completely >> removed now. I left most things in because there's still some things >> undecided. I'm not sure how we'll handle multiple sets now. Will we have >> all sets in one .ini and create a new .ini for every different collection >> of sets. Or will we define each set in one .ini each and pass multiple >> .ini's to covoar. How will the user pick which sets he's interested in? >> Pass names to coverage argument maybe >> >> --coverage=score,core..etc >> > The script used to treat it like a collection of sets. I was thinking of > running a loop over all the keys under a tag [symbol-sets] and getting > their respective libraries . > Is it for the user to decide which sets to use? > It's probably best to give some options to change the sets under test. > Do we need to have a separate ini file for each set? > It can work either way, it's more a matter of which is the better design. > >> Chris when you redefined the config logic, how did imagine multiple sets >> working? >> >>> >>> One thing can be done, which I think will solve parsing of the absolute >>> path of the library as well. It is to implement the the logic that Chris >>> used in covoar.cc , into the python script for coverage . Then we can do an >>> os.path.abspath() for the absolute path and the extract the directory name >>> from there for the html report from the same place. Can we do it that way ? >>> >> >> Sounds like a good plan. Definitely give it a shot. >> > it would be good if it works out, but again , the main challenge is the > path to build directory. :p >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
