Robert Treat wrote:
> You could check into what spikesource has been doing. I believe they mostly
> just piggyback off of our regression tests for postgresql core, but there
> might still be something that could be built upon. If you look at this url
> the actual success information isnt terribly exciting but the "code coverage"
> url shows something of more interest. There is more stuff if you dig around a
This can't be right. The report for function coverage shows 100% for
all utf8_and_*.c files, at the end of the listing. Notice how "C/D
coverage" (I don't know what it means but I assume it's somehow computed
per lines of code or something) is 0, which is probably the correct
result, because our regression tests do not test charset conversions at
I think the bug may be that they use function names to see what is
actually tested ...
IIRC Gavin Sherry gave a URL to a test coverage result some centuries
ago. The only thing that I remember about the result was that it was
surprinsingly low (IMHO at least).
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Gavin Sherry||Date: 2006-02-23 02:40:06|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL unit tests|
|Previous:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2006-02-23 00:22:17|
|Subject: Re: Attempting upgrade path; is this possible?|