From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA2B7C433F5 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 20:11:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239443AbiDHUNL (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:13:11 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58042 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233395AbiDHUNK (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:13:10 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 112753542B3 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:11:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3788D1895EC; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:11:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=XmaVcozFp5tVkPS5YgFtzN8DwFWlpgCziaipXH s3+84=; b=HuJaP+fwhmyKfJTJks/YPU0WOCxKo5n+6ZsQtHxDfBb+jZIerc1ea9 DYKNMBLIX97nTEvNK9x04DUMcKbsME2p3jlXQMxX9sTaxXsQd6/Fh+3wANY8y9ie P6rTPTvtJZCZPPTs7q97tl2/yTcmD82JtNMAZT+QGpdRRhOX6gA9w= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8401895EB; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:11:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.185.214.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 833151895EA; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:10:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elia Pinto Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Makefile: add a prerequisite to the coverage-report target References: <20220408105443.192217-1-gitter.spiros@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 13:10:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20220408105443.192217-1-gitter.spiros@gmail.com> (Elia Pinto's message of "Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:54:43 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 01300330-B778-11EC-B0B5-CBA7845BAAA9-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Elia Pinto writes: > @@ -3409,7 +3409,7 @@ coverage-prove: coverage-clean-results coverage-compile > DEFAULT_TEST_TARGET=prove GIT_PROVE_OPTS="$(GIT_PROVE_OPTS) -j1" \ > -j1 test > > -coverage-report: > +coverage-report: coverage-test > $(QUIET_GCOV)for dir in $(object_dirs); do \ > $(GCOV) $(GCOVFLAGS) --object-directory=$$dir $$dir*.c || exit; \ > done I am not sure if this alone makes it a good change. With the current set-up, you can run coverage-test or coverage-prove once, view coverage-report, shift your attention to elsewhere to address issues you saw in the report, and then decide to view the report again to remind yourself what you saw and what motivated you to work on your changes. Most likely this sequence would be followed by another run of coverage-test followed by coverage-report to compare what you saw before you made these changes with the covernage report after your changes. If this were conditional, i.e. "ah, I see you haven't run any coverage test yet, so let me run it for you before showing the result" combined with "ok, I see you did run coverage test, so let me just show the result without running tests anew", then it would be a strict improvement from the status quo. But with the patch as posted, wouldn't we unconditonally wipe the earlier result out? If so that may negatively affect established workflow of some people, I am afraid. Thanks.