From: Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@...>
Date: 2008-05-08T08:44:34+09:00
Subject: Re: Is rcov stable? (was Re: rcov segmentation faults

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

A: Because it makes it difficult to follow the conversation.
Q: Why is top posting bad?

Stephen Anderson wrote:
| The variety of different errors I'm getting make me suspect some sort of
| C language buffer overrun.
|
| Since I only see these problems when trying to use rcov, I'm swift
| approaching the point of tabling attempts to use rcov and just trying it
| again as new releases appear.
|
| I'm more inclined to suspect rcov than our code because our project is
| still just a simple Rails app that doesn't do anything all that tricky.
|
| The possibility that I might be ignoring a nasty bug in our rails code
| does cause me concern though.

What do RCov's tests say? Do they segfault, too?

Have you tried a simple app, with only a handful of tests, that doesn't
use Rails?

Are the slices virtual machines? Are you sure that the VM engine used
(Xen, Virtuozzo, whatever) doesn't introduce artifacts that result in
segfaults?

Are you aware that RCov only runs your tests and shows you,
approximately, which parts of the code get exercised by your tests?

And shouldn't you run coverage on, say, development / build machines, as
doing that in production is rather pointless?

What version of RCov are you using? A 'gem install'ed one, or one
installed via apt-get?

- --
Phillip Gawlowski
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan
Blog: http://justarubyist.blogspot.com

~ - You know you've been hacking too long when...
...you count empty bottles (two at a time) like this:
"2, 4, 8, 16, 32, .... 32?!?"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkgiPt8ACgkQbtAgaoJTgL8/EgCfYIoG8JA58mtAXr/SG2bkcBWR
Y9oAoKT1ADcMDeWuBXFBivT+WlvTW7Re
=ftWm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----