r
>> Nokia, Guidance Team
>>
>> From: development-bounces+bill.king=nokia@qt-project.org
>> [mailto:development-bounces+bill.king=nokia@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of
>> ext Sébastien Fricker
>> Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2012 9:08 AM
>> To: developme
October 2012 9:08 AM
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Code coverage statistics online
One possible request: entry marking in the source reports, ie:
QString QMimeType::filterString() const
From:
http://download.froglogic.com/public/qt5-squishcoco-report/libQtWidgets
> One possible request: entry marking in the source reports, ie:
> QString QMimeType::filterString() const
> From:
> http://download.froglogic.com/public/qt5-squishcoco-report/libQtWidgets/source_147.html
>
> Was the test entered but the if lines not tested?
>
> Another example: void QMimeTypePr
Hi,
providing a code coverage analysis of Qt is a living project and so we would be
happy of any feedback of the Qt developers.
Issues and suggestions can be addressed to the Squish Coco forum:
http://www.froglogic.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=10
We found that it is better to not put issues on metr
+bill.king=nokia@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of
ext Sébastien Fricker
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012 10:15 AM
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Code coverage statistics online
> Overall the coverage was less than I expected, so I started reading the
> source file
> Would you include add-ons in the reports too?
Actually we start with QtBase. Of course in the future,
the goal is to provide an analysis on the whole Qt source.
> Anyway to get run output logs from failed tests?
Good suggestion, will be present in the next daily coverage report.
Sébastien
__
On 27/09/12 04:06, Harri Porten wrote:
> 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-
> 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
>
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-squishcoc
On Wednesday 26. September 2012 20.06.21 Harri Porten wrote:
> Feedback of any kind is welcome.
Nice!
Jędrek
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
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
11 matches
Mail list logo