Skip to content

ci(coverage): add gcovr exclusions#27

Merged
ReenigneArcher merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
ci(coverage)-add-gcovr-exclusions
May 8, 2024
Merged

ci(coverage): add gcovr exclusions#27
ReenigneArcher merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
ci(coverage)-add-gcovr-exclusions

Conversation

@ReenigneArcher
Copy link
Member

@ReenigneArcher ReenigneArcher commented May 8, 2024

Description

Adds 3 exclusions for the gcovr report generation.

Screenshot

Issues Fixed or Closed

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Dependency update (updates to dependencies)
  • Documentation update (changes to documentation)
  • Repository update (changes to repository files, e.g. .github/...)

Checklist

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have added or updated the in code docstring/documentation-blocks for new or existing methods/components

Branch Updates

LizardByte requires that branches be up-to-date before merging. This means that after any PR is merged, this branch
must be updated before it can be merged. You must also
Allow edits from maintainers.

  • I want maintainers to keep my branch updated

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 8, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 71.42%. Comparing base (3e79da9) to head (1f16eae).

Additional details and impacted files 
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #27       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   44.75%   71.42%   +26.67%     
===========================================
  Files           7        7               
  Lines         324      322        -2     
  Branches      177      177               
===========================================
+ Hits          145      230       +85     
+ Misses         42       39        -3     
+ Partials      137       53       -84
Flag Coverage Δ
Linux 78.72% <ø> (+14.89%) ⬆️
Windows 72.45% <ø> (+28.15%) ⬆️
macOS 51.66% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

@ReenigneArcher
Copy link
Member Author

ReenigneArcher commented May 8, 2024

@FrogTheFrog coverage seems better, but still some oddities.

For example no log messages are fully covered.

If you'd like to review, the results are here: https://app.codecov.io/gh/LizardByte/libdisplaydevice/pull/27/indirect-changes

@ReenigneArcher ReenigneArcher marked this pull request as ready for review May 8, 2024 12:58
@FrogTheFrog
Copy link
Contributor

FrogTheFrog commented May 8, 2024

@FrogTheFrog coverage seems better, but still some oddities.

For example no log messages are fully covered.

If you'd like to review, the results are here: https://app.codecov.io/gh/LizardByte/libdisplaydevice/pull/27/indirect-changes

That's to be expected. The WinApiLayer is where I draw the line with the windows API (I do not test the edge cases).

This could break just because OS decided to shit itself, so to say:

result = GetDisplayConfigBufferSizes(flags, &path_count, &mode_count);
if (result != ERROR_SUCCESS) {
  DD_LOG(error) << getErrorString(result) << " failed to get display paths and modes!";
  return std::nullopt;
}

While I do not test such cases, I always cover the cases when it could return std::nullopt.
Maybe if I feel like it, I could try to expand the UTs for WinApiLayer later in the future, but for now I don't want to focus on this (except maybe WinApiLayer::getFriendlyName and WinApiLayer::getDisplayName since they don't require digging in too deep...

@ReenigneArcher ReenigneArcher merged commit 8c69e42 into master May 8, 2024
@ReenigneArcher ReenigneArcher deleted the ci(coverage)-add-gcovr-exclusions branch May 8, 2024 13:22
@ReenigneArcher ReenigneArcher mentioned this pull request May 11, 2024
Merged
11 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@ReenigneArcher @FrogTheFrog