[Development] Code coverage statistics online

[Rohan McGovern]

Harri Porten said:
> Hi!
> 
> We started publishing code coverage results of Qt 5 unit test runs as 
> produced by our tool Squish Coco:
> 
>    http://download.froglogic.com/public/qt5-squishcoco-report/ (results)
>    http://download.froglogic.com/public/effectively-testing-qt5-using-squishcoco/ (setup and example)
> 
> >From that link you can browse to the coverage data of libraries, functions 
> and source files.
> 
> We chose a decision/coverage analysis method. In comparison to line 
> coverage this is a bit harder to grasp and gives different numbers but for 
> a developer it's the more useful. I plan to follow up with a study of a 
> small number of exemplaric cases accompanied with suggested patches to 
> tests and maybe code. And to make things easier to understand in the 
> mostly-static HTML output we'll also improve the coloring of instrumented 
> branches soon.
> 
> Provided that the cron job works the results will be updated daily. If 
> anyone has an idea how this could be integrated more tightly with the 
> automated Qt project test results please let us know. Caroline Chao was 
> already using a predecessor of the tool for the same purpose within 
> the Nokia build infrastructure btw.
> 
> Feedback of any kind is welcome.

Overall the coverage was less than I expected, so I started reading the
source files list starting from lowest coverage and found some surprising
results, e.g. qmimedata.cpp 0% coverage, qsettings.cpp nearly 0%
coverage although I know there are tests for these.

In the execution list at
http://download.froglogic.com/public/qt5-squishcoco-report/libQtCore.so.5.0.0.html
indeed it seems that tst_QSettings, tst_QMimeData are missing from the
list :(  I suppose there are others missing too. Any idea what might
have caused them to be excluded from the results?