test: keep coverage reports after coverage-clean #15470

apapirovski · 2017-09-19T11:57:16Z

This PR adds the coverage folder to .gitignore and removes it from make coverage-clean. I feel like this is a useful change for anyone working on tests. It's nice to be able to keep the coverage reports to reference while writing tests without keeping the rest of the coverage instrumentation (which makes tests slow) and also without having to manually rename the coverage dir (and then avoid adding it to commits).

Checklist

commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

test, build

ssbrewster · 2017-09-19T12:38:31Z

That reminds me I need to raise a PR for this but i will take out the conditional on removing the coverage/ dir because it's covered by this PR. I'm also not sure about spinning up another make process.

I was waiting for input on #15214 but that's been long enough now.

TimothyGu · 2017-09-20T08:22:46Z

Hmm, I'd rather have a separate target for "restore but doesn't actually clean". make clean removes the built binaries as well. So something like:

make coverage-restore: keeps coverage reports, keeps downloaded tools, restore lib_/
make coverage-clean: restore lib_/, deletes everything related to coverage (reports, tools, etc.)

@ssbrewster @apapirovski does that sound like something that would satisfy your use cases?

ssbrewster · 2017-09-20T09:06:36Z

@TimothyGu yes that would work for my use cases i just wonder whether we should run coverage-restore as part of the make coverage target itself so it restores the lib directory after the coverage is generated. Is there any reason for not restoring that? If this is an edge case and the user wants to inspect those files then they could specify that by passing an environment variable to the make command (similar to option 2 in #15214). And we keep the make coverage-clean as a separate target for when the user wants to clean everything up.

apapirovski · 2017-09-20T12:38:13Z

I'm personally just not sure what the upside is of deleting the coverage reports, especially if they're in .gitignore. The folder is tiny and its useful info.

There are legitimate reasons to run make clean and then build fresh, whereas I don't see the same for coverage.

(I'm fine with any other changes proposed around this behaviour but I would still like to be able to somehow clean & keep just coverage and have it be in .gitignore.)

BridgeAR · 2017-09-27T21:11:12Z

I personally do not have a strong opinion about either suggested way but I think it is a good thing to make sure we have the possibility of keeping the coverage.

@nodejs/tsc I think it would be good to weight in.

apapirovski · 2017-10-12T19:21:44Z

Could we get some movement on this by any chance? Thanks! If this change is not wanted, I'm happy to close but would like to resolve one way or the other.

jasnell · 2017-10-13T20:07:42Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/10695/

thefourtheye · 2017-10-15T11:10:31Z

I don't have a strong preference, but I am leaning towards the idea proposed by @TimothyGu.

mcollina

LGTM

Add coverage folder to .gitignore and remove it from the list of files & folders delete by coverage-clean.

apapirovski · 2017-10-18T22:21:03Z

@TimothyGu @thefourtheye would either of you like to make your objection official? Want to make sure since otherwise this can get merged.

BridgeAR · 2017-11-22T13:24:06Z

Seems like there are no strong objections and this can land.

If someone objects later on we could change it again anyway.

mhdawson

LGTM

jasnell · 2017-11-22T17:42:19Z

New CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/11637/

jasnell · 2017-11-22T20:57:11Z

there's some red in the CI that should be looked at.

apapirovski · 2017-11-22T21:00:05Z

It's hard to imagine it's related given that it's this test: async-hooks/test-signalwrap on one specific environment that has been red all day.

jasnell · 2017-11-22T21:04:56Z

There's also this failure on freebsd... that has not failed in any other test I've seen today. Also likely unrelated but just want to confirm

not ok 264 parallel/test-cluster-send-handle-large-payload
  ---
  duration_ms: 0.562
  severity: fail
  stack: |-
    undefined:1
    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
    
    SyntaxError: Unexpected token a in JSON at position 0
        at JSON.parse (<anonymous>)
        at Pipe.channel.onread (internal/child_process.js:487:28)

jasnell · 2017-11-22T21:12:47Z

Ok, quick check through and there's really no way those could have been affected by this change. Will land as soon as CI finishes

Add coverage folder to .gitignore and remove it from the list of files & folders delete by coverage-clean. PR-URL: #15470 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>

jasnell · 2017-11-22T21:16:32Z

Landed in c6b7052

Add coverage folder to .gitignore and remove it from the list of files & folders delete by coverage-clean. PR-URL: #15470 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>

MylesBorins · 2017-12-19T21:14:50Z

Should this be backported to v6.x-staging? If yes please follow the guide and raise a backport PR, if not let me know or add the dont-land-on label.

Add coverage folder to .gitignore and remove it from the list of files & folders delete by coverage-clean. PR-URL: #15470 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>

nodejs-github-bot added build Issues and PRs related to build files or the CI. meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. labels Sep 19, 2017

jasnell approved these changes Sep 19, 2017

View reviewed changes

BridgeAR approved these changes Sep 20, 2017

View reviewed changes

BridgeAR requested a review from a team September 27, 2017 21:11

evanlucas approved these changes Oct 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

joyeecheung approved these changes Oct 13, 2017

View reviewed changes

mcollina approved these changes Oct 16, 2017

View reviewed changes

test: keep coverage reports after coverage-clean

dbda6bb

Add coverage folder to .gitignore and remove it from the list of files & folders delete by coverage-clean.

apapirovski force-pushed the patch-coverage-clean-adjust branch from 7f674fc to dbda6bb Compare October 18, 2017 22:19

BridgeAR added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Nov 22, 2017

mhdawson approved these changes Nov 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

jasnell closed this Nov 22, 2017

addaleax removed the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Nov 28, 2017

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Dec 12, 2017

v9.3.0 proposal #17631

Merged

MylesBorins added the backport-requested-v6.x label Dec 19, 2017

gibfahn added the land-on-v8.x label Dec 19, 2017

gibfahn mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2017

v8.9.4 proposal #17772

Closed

gibfahn mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2017

v8.9.4 proposal #17774

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

test: keep coverage reports after coverage-clean #15470

test: keep coverage reports after coverage-clean #15470

apapirovski commented Sep 19, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ssbrewster commented Sep 19, 2017 •

edited

Loading

TimothyGu commented Sep 20, 2017

ssbrewster commented Sep 20, 2017

apapirovski commented Sep 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

BridgeAR commented Sep 27, 2017

apapirovski commented Oct 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

jasnell commented Oct 13, 2017

thefourtheye commented Oct 15, 2017

mcollina left a comment

apapirovski commented Oct 18, 2017

BridgeAR commented Nov 22, 2017

mhdawson left a comment

jasnell commented Nov 22, 2017

jasnell commented Nov 22, 2017

apapirovski commented Nov 22, 2017

jasnell commented Nov 22, 2017

jasnell commented Nov 22, 2017

jasnell commented Nov 22, 2017

MylesBorins commented Dec 19, 2017

test: keep coverage reports after coverage-clean #15470

test: keep coverage reports after coverage-clean #15470

Conversation

apapirovski commented Sep 19, 2017 • edited Loading

Checklist

Affected core subsystem(s)

ssbrewster commented Sep 19, 2017 • edited Loading

TimothyGu commented Sep 20, 2017

ssbrewster commented Sep 20, 2017

apapirovski commented Sep 20, 2017 • edited Loading

BridgeAR commented Sep 27, 2017

apapirovski commented Oct 12, 2017 • edited Loading

jasnell commented Oct 13, 2017

thefourtheye commented Oct 15, 2017

mcollina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

apapirovski commented Oct 18, 2017

BridgeAR commented Nov 22, 2017

mhdawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasnell commented Nov 22, 2017

jasnell commented Nov 22, 2017

apapirovski commented Nov 22, 2017

jasnell commented Nov 22, 2017

jasnell commented Nov 22, 2017

jasnell commented Nov 22, 2017

MylesBorins commented Dec 19, 2017

apapirovski commented Sep 19, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ssbrewster commented Sep 19, 2017 •

edited

Loading

apapirovski commented Sep 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

apapirovski commented Oct 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading