Re: Increasing code-coverage of 'make check'

Thanks Alvaro!

The thought of psql_help purely because it was the easiest at that time.
Since I've just begun my understanding of the code is barely negligible.

I began working on SEQUENCE related tests thereafter and hopefully would
move to more complicated tests in time. Peter's link is obviously helpful
but since I end up doing make check ~100 of times a day, for now its useful
only to cross-check how much code is uncommitted :)

Robins

On 11 March 2013 09:16, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

>
> 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).
>
>