From: mame@...
Date: 2014-03-03T11:05:22+00:00
Subject: [ruby-core:61253] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9508] Add method coverage and branch coverage metrics

Issue #9508 has been updated by Yusuke Endoh.


Hello, Sam and Eric

Eric Wong wrote:
> Fair enough on the changes (I cannot make decisions on API changes).
>  We shall wait for others (mame?) to respond.

Yes, I'm the original author and current maintainer of ext/coverage.

I'm positive for Branch coverage itself!  I don't care the API so much because it is a "backend" library that casual users should not use directly.  However, I don't think that it is a good idea to break compatibility with no strong reason.

I also thank you for providing a patch.  But sorry, at the moment, I can't afford the time to review it.  For a time, could you address the problems that Eric pointed?

Eric, thank you for your reviewing!

-- 
Yusuke Endoh <mame@tsg.ne.jp>

----------------------------------------
Feature #9508: Add method coverage and branch coverage metrics
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9508#change-45593

* Author: Sam Rawlins
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Category: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
Since the Coverage extension was introduced in Ruby 1.9, Ruby has had built-in line code coverage. Ruby should support more of the basic code coverage metrics [1]. I have a pull request on GitHub ( https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/511 ) to add Method Coverage (Function Coverage) and Branch Coverage. I'd love feedback to improve it.

Currently, with this feature, Coverage.result would look like:

    {"/Users/sam/code/ruby/cov_method.rb" => {
      lines: [1, 2, 2, 20, nil, nil, 2, 2, 2, nil, 0, nil, nil, nil, 1, 0, nil, nil, 1, 1, nil, nil, 1],
      methods: {1=>2, 15=>0, 19=>1},
      branches: {8=>2, 11=>0}
    }}

which includes
* the current Ruby line coverage report,
* as well as a method report (The method defined on line 1 was called 2 times; the method on line 15 was called 0 times; ...),
* and a branch report (the branch on line 8 was called 2 times; the branch on line 11 was called 0 times).

Branches
--------

Branches include the bodies of if, elsif, else, unless, and when statements, which are all tracked with this new feature. However, this feature is not aware of void bodies, for example:

    if foo
      :ok
    end

will report that only one branch exists in the file. It would be better to declare that there is a branch body on line 2, and a void branch body on line 3, or perhaps line 1. This would require the keys of the [:branch] Hash to be something other than line numbers. Perhaps label_no? Perhaps nd_type(node) paired with line or label_no?

More Coverage
-------------

I think that Statement Coverage, and Condition Coverage could be added to this feature, using the same techniques.

Caveats
-------

I was not very clear on the bit-arrays used in ruby.h, and just used values for the new macros that seemed to work.

Also, I would much rather use Ranges to identify a branch, so that a Coverage analyzer like SimpleCov won't need any kind of Ruby parser to identify and highlight a full chunk of code as a tested branch, or a not tested branch. I'm trying to find how that could be implemented...

[1] Wikipedia has good definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_coverage

---Files--------------------------------
pull-request-511.patch (26.7 KB)
pull-request-511.patch (38.5 KB)
pull-request-511.patch (57 KB)


-- 
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/