BIND 10 #362: python coverage report via make

[BIND 10 Development]

#362: python coverage report via make
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
      Reporter:  jreed         |        Owner:  jreed    
          Type:  defect        |       Status:  reviewing
      Priority:  major         |    Milestone:           
     Component:  Unclassified  |   Resolution:           
      Keywords:                |    Sensitive:  0        
Estimatedhours:  0.0           |        Hours:  0        
      Billable:  1             |   Totalhours:  0        
      Internal:  0             |  
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------

Comment(by jelte):

 Replying to [comment:4 jreed]:
 > Replying to [comment:3 jelte]:
 > > Not sure if we want to have separate targets, but if not, we should
 > > either have something like ./configure --enable-coverage that
 configures both, or
 > > only let make coverage run the specific subset specified at
 > > configure-time.
 >
 > Okay I remove the "exit 1" from each of these. It is okay not to error
 out I think and just show the message.
 >

 cool

 > > very small nit for the tester without patience, perhaps mention the
 > > output directories also in the first make target (coverage), since the
 > > rest are for most use-cases not that interesting (or possibly say this
 > > even before mentioning targets).
 >
 > I am not sure I understand. You want it to echo the location?
 > I now have it output like:
 > {{{
 > Generated Python Code Coverage report in HTML at /backup/isc-work-
 svn/svn/branches/trac362/coverage-python-html
 > }}}
 >

 oh, no i was just talking about the README file itself; what i had in mind
 was mentioning the output directories in the 'introduction' (i.e. the text
 before summing up the actual make targets). But it was only an extremely
 minor nit and the text is fine as it is. Oh except the name of the output
 directory for cpp coverage is now out of date :)

 > > The output directories for c++ and python coverage could be a little
 > > more consistent (no real preference, but 'coverage' seems to
 > > generic, esp. compared to py-coverage-html, i'd prefer something like
 > > 'coverage-cpp' and 'coverage-py' but again, no real preference)
 >
 > I renamed the directories to coverage-cpp-html and coverage-python-html.

 awesome.

 thumbs up :)

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/362#comment:5>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development