This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Translator test coverage
- From: William Cohen <wcohen at redhat dot com>
- To: SystemTAP <systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:23:34 -0400
- Subject: Translator test coverage
It has been a while since I have run test coverage tests, so I decided
that it would probably be a good to generate that information again to
see what parts of the translator are exercised by the translator and the
runtime tests. After fixing things for the string keyword in the runtime
tests, I generated the new coverage information. It is posted on
http://people.redhat.com/wcohen
http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/stap-trans-tests-20060517/
http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/stap-run-tests-20060517/
Some comments about the what I saw in the test results. There are a
number of options in stap that are unexercised. There should be tests
that exercise the options:
"-vv" verbose >= 2, this should also trigger a lot additional code coverage
"-p0" and "-p6" a .ko test to check that error checking for pass number
"-I", "-R", "-m", "-r", "-k", "-s", "-c", "-x", "-h"
There isn't much exercise of the throw/catch paths in the code. Either
parse or semantic errors. Need some additional .ko tests to exercise
this paths.
The tapsets.cxx and staptree.cxx are the files that have the least
amount of coverage.
A number of members in mark_derived_probe, mark_builder, and
hrtimer_derived_probe in tapsets.cxx are not exercised.
The testing for the printf specification could be more complete in
staptree.cxx, "%X" and "%n" and justification arguments.
staptree.cxx looks to have code to regenerate the script from the
internal parse tree. None of that code seems to be exercised.
-Will