Skip to content

Script to find regression tests that cover given source lines #4974

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 1, 2019

Conversation

danpoe
Copy link
Contributor

@danpoe danpoe commented Aug 1, 2019

An intended use case is to find regression tests that need to be adapted when a loss of coverage in some files is observed when a new feature is merged.

For example, when improving the constant propagator to propagate more operations, some existing tests that were intended to test the constraint encoding of those operations might then be solved via constant propagation. Thus, the existing tests need to be adapted to use non-constants as inputs.

  • Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
  • Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
  • The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
  • Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
  • n/a My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
  • My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
  • n/a White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

An intended use case is to find regression tests that need to be adapted when a
loss of coverage in some files is observed when a new feature is merged.

For example, when improving the constant propagator to propagate more
operations, some existing tests that were intended to test the constraint
encoding of those operations might then be solved via constant propagation.
Thus, the existing tests need to be adapted to use non-constants as inputs.
Copy link
Contributor

@allredj allredj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

✔️
Passed Diffblue compatibility checks (cbmc commit: 75fe74b).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/121647863

@codecov-io
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #4974 into develop will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #4974   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    69.24%   69.24%           
========================================
  Files         1309     1309           
  Lines       108453   108453           
========================================
  Hits         75096    75096           
  Misses       33357    33357

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5d2e8b9...75fe74b. Read the comment docs.

@danpoe danpoe merged commit cf7b9bf into diffblue:develop Aug 1, 2019
@danpoe danpoe deleted the feature/find-covering-tests branch June 2, 2020 17:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants