[Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] cmake: add code coverage support
Maxim Kokryashkin
m.kokryashkin at tarantool.org
Sun Jul 30 16:34:16 MSK 2023
Hi!
Thanks for the patch and the fixes!
Please consider my comments below.
There were neither v2 letter, nor diffs for all of the changes,
so I'll bring the missing ones by myself.
Here is the commit message on the branch:
| cmake: add code coverage support
|
| The patch adds building code coverage support using gcovr [1] and gcov.
| gcovr is a better version of lcov, see [2]. CMake target LuaJIT-coverage
| executes regression tests, proccess *.gcno and *.gcda files with gcov,
Typo: s/process/processes/
| builds detailed HTML report and prints summary about code coverage.
Typo: s/detailed/a detailed
Typo: s/summary/a summary/
|
| ```
| $ cmake -S . -B build -DENABLE_COVERAGE=ON
| $ cmake --build build --parallel
| $ cmake --build build --target LuaJIT-coverage
|
| <snipped>
|
| lines: 84.1% (26056 out of 30997)
| functions: 88.8% (2055 out of 2314)
| branches: 71.5% (14801 out of 20703)
| ```
|
| 1. https://gcovr.com/
| 2. https://gcovr.com/en/stable/faq.html#what-is-the-difference-between-lcov-and-gcovr
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 11:42:50AM +0300, Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches wrote:
> Hello, Sergey! Thanks for review!
>
>
> On 7/26/23 18:02, Sergey Kaplun wrote:
> > Hi, Sergey!
> > Thanks for the patch!
> > It's very interesting to see coverage statistics of the LuaJIT by our
> > tests: have much more work to do! :)
> >
> > Also, it's interesting to compare test suites with each other (done with
> > lcov, sorted alphabetically):
> > | lua-Harness-tests:
> > | lines......: 54.2% (13550 of 25023 lines)
> > | functions..: 62.4% (1103 of 1769 functions)
> > | branches...: 37.3% (8293 of 22222 branches)
> > | LuaJIT-tests:
> > | lines......: 71.3% (17846 of 25023 lines)
> > | functions..: 74.1% (1310 of 1769 functions)
> > | branches...: 54.7% (12155 of 22222 branches)
> > | PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests:
> > | lines......: 51.2% (12800 of 25023 lines)
> > | functions..: 57.9% (1025 of 1769 functions)
> > | branches...: 36.0% (7997 of 22222 branches)
> > | tarantool-c-tests:
> > | lines......: 33.3% (8210 of 24676 lines)
> > | functions..: 38.6% (672 of 1740 functions)
> > | branches...: 20.4% (4490 of 22014 branches)
> > | tarantool-tests:
> > | lines......: 69.6% (17405 of 25023 lines)
> > | functions..: 76.7% (1357 of 1769 functions)
> > | branches...: 49.9% (11090 of 22222 branches)
> >
> > | Overall:
> > | lines......: 86.0% (21509 of 25023 lines)
> > | functions..: 90.8% (1606 of 1769 functions)
> > | branches...: 66.7% (14812 of 22222 branches)
> >
> > Please, consider my comments below.
> It is interesting, thanks for measuring it!
> >
> > On 25.07.23, Sergey Bronnikov wrote:
> > > From: Sergey Bronnikov <sergeyb at tarantool.org>
> > >
> > > The patch adds building code coverage report using gcovr [1] and gcov.
> > > gcovr is a better version of lcov, see [2]. CMake target LuaJIT-coverage
> > Do we really need any features provided by gcovr that are omitted in
> > lcov? It's not a problem for me, but there are many more dependencies
> > for gcovr than for lcov. Also, it uses python that isn't such
> > available (I mean installed by default) as perl.
>
> gcovr has exactly three dependencies, see [1].
>
> Other dependencies specified for gcovr ebuild are "test" dependencies,
> required for
>
> those who will make patches and run tests for gcovr. I don't get why ebuild
> maintainer
>
> made these dependencies mandatory.
>
> 1. https://github.com/gcovr/gcovr/blob/27e6b3aaec7c91f54fa8e7531f8d652bf6aeadd4/setup.py#L54
>
>
> BTW lcov has a bigger number of dependencies than specified
>
> in ebuild (or these dependencies are included in a Perl distribution, see
> [2]:
>
>
> - Capture::Tiny
> - DateTime
> - Devel::Cover
> - Digest::MD5
> - File::Spec
> - at least one flavor of JSON module.
> In order of performance/preference:
> - JSON::XS
> - Cpanel::JSON::XS
> - JSON::PP
> - JSON
> - Memory::Process
> - Time::HiRes
>
>
> 2. https://github.com/linux-test-project/lcov
>
>
> >
> > | $ equery depgraph dev-util/gcovr
> > | ...
> > | * dependency graph for dev-util/gcovr-6.0
> > | `-- dev-util/gcovr-6.0 [~amd64 keyword]
> > | `-- dev-python/jinja-3.1.2 (dev-python/jinja) amd64
> > | `-- dev-python/lxml-4.9.2 (dev-python/lxml) amd64
> > | `-- dev-python/pygments-2.15.1 (dev-python/pygments) amd64
> > | `-- dev-python/yaxmldiff-0.1.0 (dev-python/yaxmldiff) amd64
> > | `-- dev-lang/python-3.11.4 (dev-lang/python) amd64
> > | `-- dev-python/pytest-timeout-2.1.0 (dev-python/pytest-timeout) amd64
> > | `-- dev-python/pytest-7.3.2 (>=dev-python/pytest-7.3.1) amd64
> > | `-- dev-python/gpep517-13 (>=dev-python/gpep517-13) amd64
> > | `-- dev-python/setuptools-67.8.0-r1 (>=dev-python/setuptools-67.8.0-r1) amd64
> > | [ dev-util/gcovr-6.0 stats: packages (10), max depth (1) ]
> > | $ equery depgraph dev-util/lcov
> > | ...
> > | * dependency graph for dev-util/lcov-1.15
> > | `-- dev-util/lcov-1.15 ~amd64
> > | `-- dev-lang/perl-5.38.0-r1 (dev-lang/perl) ~amd64
> > | `-- dev-perl/JSON-4.100.0 (dev-perl/JSON) ~amd64
> > | `-- dev-perl/PerlIO-gzip-0.200.0-r1 (dev-perl/PerlIO-gzip) amd64
> > | [ dev-util/lcov-1.15 stats: packages (4), max depth (1) ]
> >
> > If we don't really need "decisions" metrics that are provided by default
> > by gcovr I suggest to consider to use lcov instead, since I don't see
> > any other advantages.
> >
> > > executes regression tests, proccess *.gcno and *.gcda files with gcov,
> > > builds detailed HTML report and prints summary about code coverage.
> > >
> > > ```
> > > $ cmake -S . -B build -DENABLE_COVERAGE=ON
> > I suggest to use -DLUAJIT_ENABLE_COVERAGE=ON to be consistent with other
> > options.
> I don't mind, renamed to LUAJIT_ENABLE_COVERAGE.
> >
> > > $ cmake --build build --parallel
> > > $ cmake --build build --target LuaJIT-coverage
> > >
> > > <snipped>
> > >
> > > lines: 84.1% (26056 out of 30997)
> > > functions: 88.8% (2055 out of 2314)
> > > branches: 71.5% (14801 out of 20703)
> > > ```
> > >
> > > 1. https://gcovr.com/
> > > 2. https://gcovr.com/en/stable/faq.html#what-is-the-difference-between-lcov-and-gcovr
> > > ---
> > > CMakeLists.txt | 9 ++++++
> > > test/CMakeLists.txt | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > test/tarantool-c-tests/CMakeLists.txt | 2 +-
> > > 3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/CMakeLists.txt b/CMakeLists.txt
> > > index 6ef24bba..8bc63b90 100644
> > > --- a/CMakeLists.txt
> > > +++ b/CMakeLists.txt
> > > @@ -116,6 +116,15 @@ if(LUAJIT_ENABLE_WARNINGS)
> > > )
> > > endif()
> > > +set(ENABLE_COVERAGE_DEFAULT OFF)
> > > +option(ENABLE_COVERAGE "Enable integration with gcovr, a code coverage program" ${ENABLE_COVERAGE_DEFAULT})
> > Minor: Please split the line to the several, to avoid too long lines.
>
> Fixed.
>
>
> >
> > > +if (ENABLE_COVERAGE)
> > > + AppendFlags(CMAKE_C_FLAGS
> > > + -fprofile-arcs
> > > + -ftest-coverage
> > Should we use just --coverage?
> Sure, updated.
Now the alignments seems kinda strange. I believe it would be
better to make it a signle line now, like:
| AppendFlags(CMAKE_C_FLAGS --coverage)
> >
> > | --coverage
> > | This option is used to compile and link code instrumented
> > | for coverage analysis. The option is a synonym for
> > | -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage (when compiling) and -lgcov
> > | (when linking).
> >
> > See man gcc(1) for details.
> >
> > > + )
> > > +endif()
> > > +
> > > # Auxiliary flags for main targets (libraries, binaries).
> > > AppendFlags(TARGET_C_FLAGS
> > > -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
I suggest moving most of the logic with finding gcov/running coverage into
a separate cmake module, just to make the test-related one more readable.
What do you think?
> > > diff --git a/test/CMakeLists.txt b/test/CMakeLists.txt
> > > index 47296a22..9b0f11d8 100644
> > > --- a/test/CMakeLists.txt
> > > +++ b/test/CMakeLists.txt
> > > @@ -59,6 +59,44 @@ add_custom_target(${PROJECT_NAME}-test DEPENDS
> > > tarantool-tests
> > > )
> > > +find_program(GCOVR gcovr)
> > > +find_program(GCOV gcov)
> > > +set(COVERAGE_HTML_REPORT "luajit-coverage.html")
> > > +set(COVERAGE_JSON_REPORT "luajit-coverage.json")
> > Should we add ${PROJECT_BUILD_DIR} prefix to be more graceful for
> > out-of-source build?
> > Also, I see tons of html helper files in the working directory. Is there
> > any way to use some <coverage/> directory for all this stuff instead?
>
> Updated:
>
>
> --- a/test/CMakeLists.txt
> +++ b/test/CMakeLists.txt
> @@ -61,9 +61,10 @@ add_custom_target(${PROJECT_NAME}-test DEPENDS
>
> find_program(GCOVR gcovr)
> find_program(GCOV gcov)
> -set(COVERAGE_HTML_REPORT "luajit-coverage.html")
> -set(COVERAGE_JSON_REPORT "luajit-coverage.json")
> -if(ENABLE_COVERAGE)
> +set(COVERAGE_DIR "${PROJECT_BINARY_DIR}/coverage")
> +set(COVERAGE_HTML_REPORT "${COVERAGE_DIR}/luajit.html")
> +set(COVERAGE_JSON_REPORT "${COVERAGE_DIR}/luajit.json")
>
>
> >
> > > +if(ENABLE_COVERAGE)
> > > + if(NOT GCOVR OR NOT GCOV)
> > > + add_custom_target(${PROJECT_NAME}-coverage)
> > > + add_custom_command(TARGET ${PROJECT_NAME}-coverage
> > > + COMMENT "Either `gcovr' or `gcov` not found, so ${PROJECT_NAME}-coverage target is dummy"
> > Minor: Please split the line to the several, to avoid too long lines.
>
>
> Done.
>
> >
> > > + )
> > > + return()
> > I suppose, we should create dummy target instead.
> > | cmake . -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DLUA_USE_APICHECK=ON -DLUA_USE_ASSERT=ON -DLUAJIT_ENABLE_GC64=OFF -DENABLE_COVERAGE=OFF && make -j
> > | -- [SetVersion] Reading version from VCS: v2.1.0-beta3-331-g4a26e6a1
> > | -- [SetBuildParallelLevel] CMAKE_BUILD_PARALLEL_LEVEL is 4
> > | CMake Error at test/CMakeLists.txt:118 (add_dependencies):
> > | Cannot add target-level dependencies to non-existent target
> > | "LuaJIT-coverage".
> >
> > > + endif()
> > > +
> > > + add_custom_target(${PROJECT_NAME}-coverage)
> > > + add_custom_command(TARGET ${PROJECT_NAME}-coverage
> > > + COMMENT "Building coverage report"
> > > + COMMAND
> > > + ${GCOVR}
> > > + # See https://gcovr.com/en/stable/guide/configuration.html
> > > + --root ${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR}
> > > + --filter ${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR}/src
> > I suppose some files like *.dasc files or buildvm sources should be
> > excluded too, since they are not informative.
>
> Done.
You did not include the actual diff for the change, so I've checked it
on GitHub. Here are two comments, that were added:
| # Exclude DynASM files, that contains a low-level VM code for CPUs.
Typo: s/that contains/that contain/
| # Exclude buildvm source code, it's a project's infrastructure.
Typo: s/a project's/the project's/
>
>
> > > + --print-summary
> > > + --output ${COVERAGE_HTML_REPORT}
> > > + --coveralls ${COVERAGE_JSON_REPORT}
> > I see also output
> >
> > > + --html
> > > + --html-title "LuaJIT Code Coverage Report"
> > > + --html-details
> > > + --sort-percentage
> > I can't see an option for decreasing percentage of uncovered lines?
> > Is its default value? If it is, then it should be used (as far as we want
> > to see uncovered cases first).
>
>
> Seems it can sort in that order only.
>
> >
> > > + --branches
> > > + --decisions
> > Do we need this option? AFAICS, this is mostly about Functional Safety
> > applications (road vehicles, etc.).
>
> I would leave it.
>
>
> >
> > > + --verbose
> > I suppose that we should use --verbose option only when VERBOSE=1 env
> > var is set.
> >
> > Also, I'm suprised by lines like this:
> > | (DEBUG) Parsing coverage data for file /home/burii/reviews/luajit/gcov/src/lj_tab.h
> > | (DEBUG) Starting the decision analysis
> > | (DEBUG) Decision Analysis finished!
> > | (DEBUG) Finding source file corresponding to a gcov data file
> > Is it the part of the --verbose options?
>
> Right, it is enabled only when --verbose is passed. Removed option --verbose
> at all,
>
> I believe we don't need it in normal use.
>
>
> >
> > > + -j ${CMAKE_BUILD_PARALLEL_LEVEL}
> > > + WORKING_DIRECTORY ${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR}
> > > + )
> > > + message(STATUS "Code coverage HTML report: ${COVERAGE_HTML_REPORT}")
> > > + message(STATUS "Code coverage JSON report: ${COVERAGE_JSON_REPORT}")
> > > +endif(ENABLE_COVERAGE)
> > > +
> > > if(LUAJIT_USE_TEST)
> > > if(POLICY CMP0037)
> > > if(CMAKE_VERSION VERSION_LESS 3.11)
> > > @@ -76,4 +114,6 @@ if(LUAJIT_USE_TEST)
> > > ${PROJECT_NAME}-test
> > > ${PROJECT_NAME}-luacheck
> > > )
> > > +
> > > + add_dependencies(${PROJECT_NAME}-coverage ${PROJECT_NAME}-test)
> > Is it necessary to rerun all tests to generate this analisys every
> > time?
>
> What could be a reasons to regenerate coverage report without rerunning
> tests?
>
> I can make a target LuaJIT-coverage that will generate report and add target
> coverage that will
>
> run tests and then call LuaJIT-coverage. What do you think?
Seems adequate to me.
>
>
> >
> > > endif()
> > > diff --git a/test/tarantool-c-tests/CMakeLists.txt b/test/tarantool-c-tests/CMakeLists.txt
> > > index 17255345..8cd76b44 100644
> > > --- a/test/tarantool-c-tests/CMakeLists.txt
> > > +++ b/test/tarantool-c-tests/CMakeLists.txt
> > > @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ foreach(test_source ${tests})
> > > OUTPUT_NAME "${exe}${C_TEST_SUFFIX}"
> > > RUNTIME_OUTPUT_DIRECTORY "${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}"
> > > )
> > > - target_link_libraries(${exe} libtest ${LUAJIT_LIBRARY})
> > > + target_link_libraries(${exe} libtest ${LUAJIT_LIBRARY} --coverage)
> > Why is it done unconditionally?
>
> Ah, missed it. Thanks!
>
>
> --- a/test/tarantool-c-tests/CMakeLists.txt
> +++ b/test/tarantool-c-tests/CMakeLists.txt
> @@ -45,7 +45,11 @@ foreach(test_source ${tests})
> OUTPUT_NAME "${exe}${C_TEST_SUFFIX}"
> RUNTIME_OUTPUT_DIRECTORY "${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}"
> )
> - target_link_libraries(${exe} libtest ${LUAJIT_LIBRARY} --coverage)
> + set(libtest-libs libtest ${LUAJIT_LIBRARY})
> + if (LUAJIT_ENABLE_COVERAGE)
> + set(libtest-libs ${libtest-libs} --coverage)
> + endif (LUAJIT_ENABLE_COVERAGE)
> + target_link_libraries(${exe} ${libtest-libs})
> LIST(APPEND TESTS_COMPILED ${exe})
> endforeach()
>
> >
> > > LIST(APPEND TESTS_COMPILED ${exe})
> > > endforeach()
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
Best regards,
Maxim Kokryashkin
More information about the Tarantool-patches
mailing list