Re: tests code coverage for php 5.5
| From: | Nicolai Scheer | Date: | Thu, 05 Jun 2014 19:10:49 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: tests code coverage for php 5.5 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-74761@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi!
On 5 June 2014 20:08, Nuno Lopes <nlopess@php.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>>>
>>> looking for tasks to invest a little spare time in the weeks to come I
>>> had
>>> a look at
>>>
>>> http://gcov.php.net/viewer.php?version=PHP_5_5
>>>
>>> The test coverage is suspiciously low...
>>>
>>> Test coverage of 5.4 is quite high, so is coverage for 5.3.
>>>
>>> I would have guessed, that for a new major php version all tests from the
>>> previous version are reused, and fixed if needed.
>>>
>>> Looking at the 5.5 source tree all the phpt files seem in place... Aren't
>>> the tests just currently not executed on gcov.php.net?
>>>
>>> Thanks for any insight!
>>>
>>> Greetings
>>>
>>> Nico
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah, something is definitely wrong:
>> http://gcov.php.net/PHP_5_4/lcov_html/
>> vs
>> http://gcov.php.net/PHP_5_5/lcov_html/
>>
>> and it we dates are correct, the last gcov build for 5.6 was more than a
>> week ago:
>> http://gcov.php.net/
>> http://gcov.php.net/PHP_5_6/lcov_html/
>>
>> ps: I've cc'ed Nuno as he is the man who knows our gcov setup.
>>
>
> Thanks for CC'ing me.
>
> Short version: the problem is fixed. The next round of builds will have
> correct coverage data (including PHP_HEAD that will be available within a
> few hours).
>
> Long version: There was a bug in the makefile that was triggered when the
> Zend opcode cache was commited. A few days ago I tried to fix it, but
> ended up introducing another bug. Anyway, I believe my last commit fixed
> the problem in Makefile.gcov, and therefore the next round of builds should
> finally have correct data.
>
> Nuno
>
> P.S.: BTW, regarding the existence of gcov.php.net, when it was created
> there were no off-the-shelf solutions, and therefore we created our own.
> It's not awsome, but works fine. Of course I'm fine with killing it when a
> replacement becomes available.
>
Thanks for looking into this issue and resolving it :)
Looking forward to checking the results.
Greetings
Nico