Re: Differential Code Coverage report for Postgres

Hi,

On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 18:14, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2025-09-05 10:09:27 +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > I have been working on generating differential code coverage for
> > Postgres and was able to do so with this script [1]. The script checks
> > out HEAD and the latest release branch (currently REL_18_STABLE), then
> > generates a differential coverage report.
>
> I wonder if it'd be better to compare the merge base between master and
> REL_18_STABLE, rather than REL_18_STABLE [1].

This looks interesting, I did not know that. I will check this out.

> > I also set up a GitHub Action so the report is updated daily and
> > published as HTML here [2].
>
> Nice!
>
> How hard would it be to compare not just REL_18_STABLE and master, but also
> REL_17_STABLE and REL_18_STABLE?

There are two things:

1- One Github Actions run takes ~50 minutes for now and since this
runs daily it is ~1500 minutes in total for a month. If you include
manual triggers and failures, it is more than 1500 minutes. Github
allows 2000 minutes free usage of Github Actions for a month. So, if
we increase the time (by generating another report), then it may
exceed the free usage limit. Right now, I install Postgres
dependencies on each task; I will work on it to reduce time.

2- If we want to show both reports on the same page, then it may
require a bit of HTML coding. I have no experience on that but I do
not think it will be hard.

--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft