Closed greg-szabo closed 3 years ago
I'm assuming this will be superseded by #811?
Since our code coverage seems broken (and seems like it has been broken for some time), we should consider fixing it or integrating tarpaulin-based coverage calculation sooner rather than later.
@romac are you planning on taking #811 further? What are the pros/cons at this point of going with cargo-llvm-cov
? I see it's still labelled as being "experimental" right now?
are you planning on taking #811 further?
I wish I could but I don't have the bandwidth at the moment.
What are the pros/cons at this point of going with
cargo-llvm-cov
?
Pros:
-Zinstrument-coverage
is still pretty new so there might be issuesI see it's still labelled as being "experimental" right now?
The wrapper itself is marked as experimental, but it basically only wraps cargo build
(adding nightly-only options), llvm-profdata
, and llvm-cov
.
By the way, we use tarpaulin on ibc-rs but have seen no real improvements (eg. the coverage still jumps around by 30% sometimes, etc) hence why I was looking into source-based code coverage.
Currently superseded by #840.
We can reopen this issue again in future if we want to reconsider using tarpaulin.
Not a done deal, but according to Tony, tarpaulin has less false negatives. https://github.com/xd009642/tarpaulin