Varnish code coverage results online

Dridi Boukelmoune dridi at
Fri Jan 6 12:21:50 CET 2017

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at> wrote:
> --------
> In message <CABoVN9Aym1aQj+=7k93eYf1jyZmCq9Ys0KmG3rCTKwTSKXHypg at>, Dridi Boukelmoune
> writes:
>>> I have also, at the same time raised the official project goal to
>>> "90%+ of *all* executable code tested automatically".
>>Only line coverage? Nothing for branches?
>>90% branch coverage is even a bigger challenge ;)
> That's probably impossible, given the number of asserts we have.

Yes, my approach is to run the test suite with assertions, and disable
them for coverage.

>>Another thing: if we want proper code coverage reports, [...]
> Are my my l33t HTML skills not proper ?!
> Seriously:  This is good enough to tell us which bits of our
> code isn't covered by "make check", which is the important part.
> Merging in data from other runs would not be a problem, my scripts
> already has support for merging because some sourcefiles drop .gcda

Cool, I had no idea!

> in multiple directories already.  We'd just need to set up a client
> to run "make check" and submit a condensed version of the raw data.

And here comes tools/ :p

> If you feel like running a Linux (or other) client, let me know and
> we can get it set up, I think my current plan is to run this only
> once per night.

If we come up with something, Travis CI could do that for us for each
push (so some work needs to be done to match the nightly scheduling).
We'd just need to set up a new job, and I think it would even run as
root and skip less tests.


More information about the varnish-dev mailing list