Skip to content

Testing code coverage workflow #18469

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft
wants to merge 38 commits into
base: v6-36-00-patches
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

pcanal
Copy link
Member

@pcanal pcanal commented Apr 22, 2025

This Pull request:

Changes or fixes:

Checklist:

  • tested changes locally
  • updated the docs (if necessary)

This PR fixes #

@pcanal pcanal self-assigned this Apr 22, 2025
@pcanal pcanal closed this Apr 22, 2025
@pcanal pcanal reopened this Apr 22, 2025
@ferdymercury
Copy link
Contributor

Maybe related: #18392

@pcanal pcanal changed the base branch from master to v6-36-00-patches April 23, 2025 14:29
@pcanal pcanal closed this Apr 23, 2025
@pcanal pcanal reopened this Apr 23, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 23, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Please upload report for BASE (v6-36-00-patches@f77121b). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##             v6-36-00-patches   #18469   +/-   ##
===================================================
  Coverage                    ?    8.07%           
===================================================
  Files                       ?     3696           
  Lines                       ?   560962           
  Branches                    ?   258185           
===================================================
  Hits                        ?    45275           
  Misses                      ?   483913           
  Partials                    ?    31774           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 8.07% <ø> (?)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@pcanal pcanal force-pushed the code_coverage branch 4 times, most recently from 34c3923 to 7972f79 Compare April 24, 2025 18:03
@pcanal pcanal closed this Apr 25, 2025
@pcanal pcanal reopened this Apr 25, 2025
pcanal added 8 commits April 25, 2025 17:27
The CMake issue: https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/-/issues/23040
leads to spurrious differences in the Ninja and CMake files related to pdb vs dbg files.
For consistency LLVM adds the 'D' flag to ar for building static to ensure that they have a deterministic
build.  However the setting is done too late/too nested and during the first configuration run, it is not
applied to some libraries (plugins, Cling).  Consequently, after a 2nd configuration run they need to be
rebuild.

This commit moves/duplicates the setting sooner.
Solve the warning:
.../core/meta/src/TClass.cxx: In member function 'virtual void TDumpMembers::Inspect(TClass*, const char*, const char*, const void*, Bool_t)':
.../core/meta/src/TClass.cxx:770:20: warning: 'char* strncpy(char*, const char*, size_t)' specified bound 994 equals destination size [-Wstringop-truncation]
  770 |             strncpy(line + kvalue, *ppointer, kline - kvalue);
      |             ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Filter out non-option cache variable about the project and CMake version.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants