Hi @robnagler and @dtabell, in an effort to ensure correctness as modifications and refactorings move forward, it would be nice to have some code-coverage data to help get a sense of which portions of the code-base are actually executed. On my automate-profiling branch I have setup a code-coverage build configuration.
Would it be possible to enable Codecov.io for zgoubi?
That way, we could update code-coverage metrics during CI testing.
To build with code-coverage support, add the -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE:STRING=CodeCoverage flag to the CMake configuration line (or selecting it from the drop down UI in ccmake or cmake-gui) will build zgoubi with code coverage enabled. I'm still looking into the best way to process the coverage output with GCov inside the docker environment in use for CI testing.
Hi @zbeekman. Would be very nice to have some idea of how much of the code is actually getting tested, so sounds to me like a good thing to do. Is there any downside?
Hi @robnagler and @dtabell, in an effort to ensure correctness as modifications and refactorings move forward, it would be nice to have some code-coverage data to help get a sense of which portions of the code-base are actually executed. On my
automate-profiling
branch I have setup a code-coverage build configuration.Would it be possible to enable Codecov.io for zgoubi?
That way, we could update code-coverage metrics during CI testing.
To build with code-coverage support, add the
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE:STRING=CodeCoverage
flag to the CMake configuration line (or selecting it from the drop down UI inccmake
orcmake-gui
) will build zgoubi with code coverage enabled. I'm still looking into the best way to process the coverage output with GCov inside the docker environment in use for CI testing.What do you think?
Thanks, Zaak