Publish C-level coverage of the CPython test suite
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
Evaluación
- Dificultad
- 5/5
- Tiempo estimado
- Más de una semana
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 25/100
- Tipo de issue
- Nueva funcionalidad
- Claridad
- Bastante claro
- Estado de actividad
- Estancado
- Stack tecnológico
- github-actions, python
- Área
- ci-cd, testing-qa
Línea de trabajo
Empieza revisando el workflow existente .github/workflows/coverage.yml y la discusión enlazada sobre el uso de clang/llvm-cov. El MVP propuesto es un informe nocturno de cobertura de CPython a nivel de C publicado mediante GitHub Pages; revisa el PR gh-94760 para ver el trabajo que ya está en curso y lo que falta.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Descripción
Feature or enhancement
Automatically publish C-level coverage of the CPython test suite.
Pitch
Recent issues, such as the problems with frame.setlineno, have revealed that the C-level coverage of the test suite isn't perfect. While source-level coverage isn't the only metric of a good test suite, paying closer attention to it should help us have more confidence when making changes to the CPython core.
Proposed design for MVP
- Publish results nightly: This cadence should be enough for most cases. While various tools like codecov.io can run on every pull request, coverage takes a long time to run, and IME, there is enough noise in the results that developers (especially new to the project) would spend a lot of time "chasing" coverage.
- Use clang/llvm-cov rather than gcc/gcov: As @erlend-aasland pointed out the LLVM toolchain coverage provides branch counts and coverage of subexpressions which seems pretty useful. There is a risk that this isn't the same tooling as most Linux developers would use, and not what
make coverage-reportdoes. - Publish to Github Pages: The easiest thing seems to be to publish to Github Pages in a new repository in the
pythonorg for this purpose. This keeps all of the credential management within Github.
Out of scope
Creating diffs between coverage runs seems like it would be useful, but I haven't found a good tool for that yet.
Python-level coverage reports would likewise be useful, but should be a follow-on to this.
Previous discussion
@brettcannon had set up coverage reports in the past, but they have been broken for a couple of releases. This aims to be simpler than that approach by using a pure Github stack (not using codecov.io) and would just run nightly, not as part of every pull request.
More recent discussion began here: https://github.com/faster-cpython/ideas/issues/426
- PR: gh-94760
- Lenguaje dominante
- Python
- Estrellas
- 77.2k
- Forks
- 36k
- Merge medio
- 1 d 9 h
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 558
Guía de contribución
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Más de python/cpython
-
docs pending
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
-
stdlib type-feature
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
-
stdlib type-feature
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 72/100
-
build type-bug
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 76/100
-
stdlib topic-email type-feature
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 70/100
Todos los issues de python/cpython
Issues similares
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 74/100
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 84/100
PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#9559 ·
-
priority: p3
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 72/100
googleapis/librarian#7636 ·
-
from:qa priority:P2 reliability tech-debt
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
spec-kitty/spec-kitty#4874 ·
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 68/100