Re: Increasing code-coverage of 'make check'

Robins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was checking code-coverage of 'make check' and saw that the regression
> tests don't touch files like psql_help.c at all (read 0%).
>
> Attached is a (very small) patch to work on one ABORT help function as a
> sample.
>
> The reason why I post this is, to know if increasing the code-coverage (as
> a task) is considered important at all (to me it is). If so, I could get
> going with creating tests for more untouched lines / functions in 'make
> check'.

I think increasing coverage is a good thing. But psql help? *shrug*
backend code is far more interesting and useful.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are some corner cases that
are interesting to test that might not necessarily show up in a coverage
chart -- for example how stuff behaves in the face of concurrent
processes, or when various counters wrap around.

Peter Eisentraut has set up a Jenkins instance that publishes coverage
info.
http://pgci.eisentraut.org/jenkins/job/postgresql_master_coverage/Coverage/
(I think he only has it running "make check"; doing the isolation tests
probably raises percentages a bit).

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services