Fix parsing of BRDA lines in LcovParser #11899
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Fixes the interpretation of the "-" in a BRDA line (meaning the branch was never executed, as opposed to executed but never taken) and fixes the internal SourceFileCoverage abstraction to account for the fact that multiple BRDA statements will occur for the same line. Based on the PR bazelbuild#10708 but does not include any changes for Java code coverage generator. Fixes bazelbuild#11051
c-mita
added
coverage
team-Rules-Server
c-mita
commented
Aug 6, 2020
| @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ | |||
| static final String LH_MARKER = "LH:"; | |||
| static final String LF_MARKER = "LF:"; | |||
| static final String END_OF_RECORD_MARKER = "end_of_record"; | |||
| static final String TAKEN = "-"; | |||
| static final String NOT_TAKEN = "-"; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe this is better as "NEVER_EXECUTED", since it means the branches in a block were never executed, not just taken.
There's a bit of inconsistency with the usages of the words "taken" and "executed" when compared to the docs here: http://ltp.sourceforge.net/coverage/lcov/geninfo.1.php
BRDA:<line number>,<block number>,<branch number>,<taken>`
Block number and branch number are gcc internal IDs for the branch.
Taken is either '-' if the basic block containing the branch was never
executed or a number indicating how often that branch was taken.
We seem to have reversed the words "taken" and "execution"...
oquenchil
requested changes
Aug 6, 2020
bazel-io
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2020
#11899 (5a8c461) changed SourceFileCoverage to properly account for multiple branches on a single line. However, it erroneously assumed that, during merges, all input coverage objects would represent the entire source file and required the exact same number of branches to be recorded in each input, in the same order. It may be that two SourceFileCoverage objects represent different parts of a source file, and so contain information for different line numbers. We should not fail to merge the branch information in these objects. This refines the branch merging logic to operate "line by line". We still require consistency in the inputs if both merge inputs have branch information for the same line. Closes #11932. PiperOrigin-RevId: 326625481
luca-digrazia
pushed a commit
to luca-digrazia/DatasetCommitsDiffSearch
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 4, 2022
bazelbuild/bazel#11899 (5a8c461) changed SourceFileCoverage to properly account for multiple branches on a single line. However, it erroneously assumed that, during merges, all input coverage objects would represent the entire source file and required the exact same number of branches to be recorded in each input, in the same order. It may be that two SourceFileCoverage objects represent different parts of a source file, and so contain information for different line numbers. We should not fail to merge the branch information in these objects. This refines the branch merging logic to operate "line by line". We still require consistency in the inputs if both merge inputs have branch information for the same line. Closes #11932. PiperOrigin-RevId: 326625481
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes the interpretation of the "-" in a BRDA line (meaning the branch
was never executed, as opposed to executed but never taken) and fixes
the internal SourceFileCoverage abstraction to account for the fact that
multiple BRDA statements will occur for the same line.
Based on the PR #10708 but does
not include any changes for the Java code coverage generator.
Fixes #11051