Thread: Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, failed Implements feature: tested, failed Spec compliant: tested, failed Documentation: tested, failed Thank you for your patch! I have confirmed that the coverage improves to the expected value（69.7%->83.0%) source: commit 75eb9766ec201b62f264554019757716093e2a2f(HEAD) ## add with-openssl option for ssltest ./configure --enable-coverage --enable-tap-tests --with-llvm --with-openssl CFLAGS=-O0 make check-world PG_TEST_EXTRA='ssl' -j 4 > /tmp/regress.log make coverage-html The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer
> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: > make installcheck-world: tested, failed > Implements feature: tested, failed > Spec compliant: tested, failed > Documentation: tested, failed Sorry, I thought I checked with the commitfest App, but it doesn't seem to be reflecting correctly. The correct version is as follows. make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: tested, passed Documentation: tested, passed
Hi, > The correct version is as follows. > > make installcheck-world: tested, passed > Implements feature: tested, passed > Spec compliant: tested, passed > Documentation: tested, passed Thanks for your feedback! > About the tests pushed to the SSL test suite, I'm +-0. 003_sslinfo.pl > is a bit better than the two others in the SSL test suite, still it > does not really fit into this file. So to clarify, you propose creating a new file for the test (still in the ssl/ suite) or keep it as is? I agree that this is not exactly the best place for the test. However I'm not sure whether creating a new one, e.g. ssl/t/004_code_coverage.pl will be much better considering the fact that the test still has little (nothing) to do with SSL. Personally I'm fine with either option though. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev