Re: Increasing code-coverage of 'make check' - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From robins
Subject Re: Increasing code-coverage of 'make check'
Date
Msg-id CAEP4nAwnMZtQA6v-2-2Bjd4QEio4580M_HX9j=QJySY+qMM_ag@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Increasing code-coverage of 'make check'  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thanks Alvaro!

The thought of psql_help purely because it was the easiest at that time. Since I've just begun my understanding of the code is barely negligible. 

I began working on SEQUENCE related tests thereafter and hopefully would move to more complicated tests in time. Peter's link is obviously helpful but since I end up doing make check ~100 of times a day, for now its useful only to cross-check how much code is uncommitted :)

Robins


On 11 March 2013 09:16, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

I think increasing coverage is a good thing.  But psql help?  *shrug*
backend code is far more interesting and useful.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are some corner cases that
are interesting to test that might not necessarily show up in a coverage
chart -- for example how stuff behaves in the face of concurrent
processes, or when various counters wrap around.

Peter Eisentraut has set up a Jenkins instance that publishes coverage
info.
http://pgci.eisentraut.org/jenkins/job/postgresql_master_coverage/Coverage/
(I think he only has it running "make check"; doing the isolation tests
probably raises percentages a bit).


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ants Aasma
Date:
Subject: Re: Using indexes for partial index builds
Next
From: Luma
Date:
Subject: TupleTable like data structure