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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Evaluate kcov for code coverage. #52

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

Evaluate kcov for code coverage. #52

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

adinapoli-mndc
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@adinapoli-mndc adinapoli-mndc force-pushed the adinapoli/coverage-3 branch 4 times, most recently from 07efa25 to 6cdea8e Compare August 30, 2019 12:16
@adinapoli-mndc adinapoli-mndc force-pushed the adinapoli/coverage-3 branch 2 times, most recently from 3e2a4db to 443bb8b Compare August 30, 2019 14:24
@adinapoli-mndc
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ok, after a day of wrestling my experiment was a fiasco, after I did stumble of this: SimonKagstrom/kcov#151

At this point, I am starting to think that generating code coverage on CI is simply not feasible, because it would require altering Docker's blacklisted syscalls, and @kim rightly advised against it.

Given this is essentially the same problem we had with tarpaulin, I don't see any satisfactory way to generate code coverage on CI for now. Perhaps we could generate this now and again locally and push it to codecov, but for now I have to time box this as it's turning into a huge time sink.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
1 participant
@adinapoli-mndc