Skip to content
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

Issue: instrumentation interferes with each other cannot run generateLOC with coverage #23

Closed
sambacha opened this issue Jul 25, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@sambacha
Copy link

Error: cannot use --generateLOC without --noCover

Running the example command in the README:

$ tstl_rt --generateLOC sut.loc --timeout 120

Error Output

Random testing using config=Config(seed=None, timeout=120, maxTests=-1, depth=100, output='failure.12380.test', multiple=False, running=False, quickTests=False, noCover=False, verbose=False, silentFail=False, silentSUT=False, normalize=False, generalize=False, swarm=False, generateLOC='sut.loc', biasLOC=None, exploit=None, reducePool=False, Pmutate=0.0, Pcrossover=0.2, profile=False, profileProbs=False, trackStates=False, stopSaturated=False, sessions=4, postCover=False, html=None, replayable=False, total=False, noCheck=False, uncaught=False, checkDeterminism=False, determinismTries=1, determinismDelay=0, checkProcessDeterminism=False, processDetTries=1, processDetDelay=0, quickPrefix='quick', readQuick=False, localize=False, localizeTop=20, full=False, logging=None, failedLogging=None, progress=False, timedProgress=30, ddmin=False, useDependencies=False, enumerateEnabled=False, noEnumerateEnabled=False, trackUsed=False, keepLast=False, noPruneGuards=False, swarmP=0.5, computeFeatureStats=False, saveSwarmCoverage=None, highLowSwarm=None, swarmProbs=None, swarmFromTest=None, swarmSwitch=None, swarmLength=None, probs=None, equalProbs=False, LOCBaseline=0.2, LOCProbs=False, markov=None, markovP=1.0, sequencesFromTests=None, sequenceP=1.0, sequenceSize=3, useQuickSequences=False, savePool=None, readPool=None, startExploit=0.0, startExploitStall=0, verboseExploit=False, exploitCeiling=0.5, useHints=False, noCoverageExploit=False, exploitBestHint=1, internal=False, fullCoverage=None, coverFile='coverage.out', noExceptionMatch=False, throughput=False, stopWhenBranches=None, stopWhenStatements=None, stopWhenNoCoverage=None, stopTestWhenNoCoverage=None, stopTestWhenThroughputBelow=None, stopWhenHitBranch=None, stopWhenHitStatement=None, trackMaxCoverage=None, maxMustHitBranch=None, maxMustHitStatement=None, verboseActions=False, hideOpaque=False, showActions=False, noAlphaConvert=False, compareFails=False, noSwarmDependencies=False, noSwarmForceParent=False, genDepth=None, stutter=None, greedyStutter=False, essentials=False, quickAnalysis=False, uniqueValuesAnalysis=False, fastQuickAnalysis=False, speed='FAST', noReassign=False, relax=False)

ERROR: cannot use --generateLOC without --noCover, instrumentations interfere with each other
ERROR: cannot use --generateLOC without --noCover, instrumentations interfere with each other

This is with coverage==4.5.2 installed at the specific version tstl==1.2.38

Note
coverage.py is at version +7.0.0

Additional msgs:

Warning: `bitwise_or()` is deprecated! Please use the | operator instead.
Warning: `bitwise_xor()` is deprecated! Please use the ^ operator instead.
Warning: `bitwise_and()` is deprecated! Please use the & operator instead.
@agroce
Copy link
Owner

agroce commented Jul 26, 2023

Fixed the instructions -- just added that you need to say '--noCover`

I should check if newer coverage.py can be supported; there was a hard lock there at some point due to incompatible API changes. For a while, no big improvements (in speed, for example) made it worth while seeming to adapt, but maybe by now there's something.

@agroce agroce closed this as completed Jul 26, 2023
@sambacha
Copy link
Author

Fixed the instructions -- just added that you need to say '--noCover`

I should check if newer coverage.py can be supported; there was a hard lock there at some point due to incompatible API changes. For a while, no big improvements (in speed, for example) made it worth while seeming to adapt, but maybe by now there's something.

Thanks for the quick follow up, it is very much appreciated!

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants