Re: [MirageOS-devel] code coverage testing with Bisect

[Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13 May 2015, at 22:50, Jeremy Yallop <jeremy.yallop@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 12 March 2015 at 09:34, David Scott <scott.dj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> If you haven't given bisect a go -- I recommend playing with it.
> 
> Another data point: I was inspired by this to set up bisect coverage
> testing for ctypes.  The standard bisect distribution didn't work for
> me, since it appears that it doesn't support some recent additions to
> the language, such as locally abstract types.  However, the new
> bisect_ppx package works very well:
> 
>   http://opam.ocaml.org/packages/bisect_ppx/bisect_ppx.0.1/
> 
> I found bisect_ppx a little easier to use than the camlp4-based
> bisect.  If you're using ocamlfind then switching on coverage testing
> is just a matter of adding '-package bisect_ppx' to the compilation
> flags:
> 
>   
> https://github.com/ocamllabs/ocaml-ctypes/blob/86b46a33/Makefile.rules#L25-L27
>   https://github.com/ocamllabs/ocaml-ctypes/blob/86b46a33/Makefile.rules#L75
> 
> I found ocveralls and coverage.io entirely straightforward to set up as well.

Looks good; it does impose an OCaml 4.02+ restriction on the use of ppx,
which I need to figure out how to do in OASIS so that we can apply this to
Cohttp.  I think it'll work with a flag that is only activated if the ppx
package is installed, which can only happen on 4.02+.

-anil


_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel