[#61171] Re: [ruby-changes:33145] normal:r45224 (trunk): gc.c: fix build for testing w/o RGenGC — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
(2014/03/01 16:15), normal wrote:
[#61243] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9425] [PATCH] st: use power-of-two sizes to avoid slow modulo ops — normalperson@...
Issue #9425 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[#61359] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9609] [Open] [PATCH] vm_eval.c: fix misplaced RB_GC_GUARDs — normalperson@...
Issue #9609 has been reported by Eric Wong.
(2014/03/07 19:09), normalperson@yhbt.net wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#61424] [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
I'm unsure about this. I _hate_ the extra branches this adds;
Hi Eric,
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
(2014/03/14 2:12), Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#61452] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9632] [Open] [PATCH 0/2] speedup IO#close with linked-list from ccan — normalperson@...
Issue #9632 has been reported by Eric Wong.
[#61496] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9638] [Open] [PATCH] limit IDs to 32-bits on 64-bit systems — normalperson@...
Issue #9638 has been reported by Eric Wong.
[#61568] hash function for global method cache — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
I came upon this because I noticed existing st numtable worked poorly
(2014/03/18 8:03), Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
what's the profit from using binary tree in place of hash?
Юрий Соколов <funny.falcon@gmail.com> wrote:
[#61687] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9606] Ocassional SIGSEGV inTestException#test_machine_stackoverflow on OpenBSD — normalperson@...
Issue #9606 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[#61760] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9632] [PATCH 0/2] speedup IO#close with linked-list from ccan — normalperson@...
Issue #9632 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[ruby-core:61270] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9508] Add method coverage and branch coverage metrics
Issue #9508 has been updated by Sam Rawlins.
Eric, I could not recreate your fork failure (I'm on OS X 10.6, compiling with gcc 4.2.1...). However, I made `update_method_coverage` safer, thanks to your backtrace. I've updated the pull request with that fix, and fewer rb_hash_lookup calls:
https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/511.patch
----------------------------------------
Feature #9508: Add method coverage and branch coverage metrics
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9508#change-45606
* 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/