canonical-ci-engineering team mailing list archive

[Didier Roche <didier.roche@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Le 07/11/2013 15:01, Francis Ginther a écrit :
> This is separate from coverity, it's code coverage [1] and unit test
> reports [2]. These are some of the few metrics we have to measure our
> test coverage and if we're moving in the right direction. I consider
> it a huge loss if we can't carry this forward.
>
> [1] - http://10.97.0.26:8080/job/mir-trusty-amd64-ci/11/cobertura/?
> [2] - http://10.97.0.26:8080/job/mir-trusty-amd64-ci/11/testReport/history/?
>
> Francis

Can it be something we dispatch from landing code actually, but more see 
it as a service for upstream, that is run, let's say, daily on their 
trunk and graphing this somewhere?

Then, it's up to the manager/component responsible to keep this graph on 
track.
Making sense?
Didier
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Didier Roche <didier.roche@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Le 06/11/2013 20:43, Francis Ginther a écrit :
> >
> > > Didier,
> > >
> > > If we move all of our builds to lp PPAs, do we still have the ability
> > > to extract code coverage and test results out of the build? Or do we
> > > end up building these outside lp? We currently do this via pbuilder
> > > hooks (going so far as to modify debian/rules to enable code coverage
> > > builds). I saw a note [1] about coverity which has similar needs but
> > > no resolution was provided.
> > >
> > > This has been keeping me up at night.
> > >
> > > [1] -
> > > https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/document/d/1up5xgh_Ryegmd72pgPjPaW_CYXu5bkF4TjO8MrTbMFk/edit
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Francis
> >
> > We discussde that at the sprint and I guess it was evan telling me that we
> > don't expect to use coverity report anymore.
> > I guess it's something that you should confirm though, as this has indeed a
> > huge impact on the design :)