CVS update: samba/source

[REILLY,JOHN R (HP-Roseville,ex1)]

Richard -

I'd be interested in your experiences, how you drove your unit tests,
what coverage target you hoped to achieve, etc. I don't believe the
specific numbers are as important doing the exercise causes. I think 
several things will be driven off this effort:

1. Further populate Tim's pyunit tests (i.e. use coverage data to "test
   the tests")
2. Targeted code review (i.e. Why didn't we hit this code? Why did we
   hit this code so much harder than we expected? etc.)
3. Drive improved Samba quality (yada yada Mom and apple pie :-)

Since my focus is printing, naturally, that is where I think the above
will initially apply. A longer term goal 'might' be to produce some
numbers automatically at the build farm.

Cheer
JohnR

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Sharpe [mailto:rsharpe at ns.aus.com]
> Sent: Wed 11-Sep-02 9:00am
> To: jreilly at samba.org
> Cc: samba-technical at samba.org
> Subject: Re: CVS update: samba/source
> 
> 
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 jreilly at samba.org wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Date:	Wed Sep 11 14:08:32 2002
> > Author:	jreilly
> > 
> > Update of /data/cvs/samba/source
> > In directory dp.samba.org:/tmp/cvs-serv31951
> > 
> > Modified Files:
> >       Tag: APPLIANCE_HEAD
> > 	configure.in configure Makefile.in 
> > Log Message:
> > 
> > Add --with-code-coverage to allow collection of coverage metrics using
the gcc/gcov
> > tool. This is currently supported with gcc version 2.96 or greater due
to a bug that
> > does not properly lock the branch metric files (*.da) on process
termination.
> > 
> > I will add a HowTo soon. I want to get Tim's python unit testing stuff
working, so I
> > can use them both as an example and show some real coverage data.
> 
> Having done this before I think you will low coverage numbers :-) 
> 
> Regards
> -----
> Richard Sharpe, rsharpe at ns.aus.com, rsharpe at samba.org, 
> sharpe at ethereal.com