Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Implement coverage test for RTEMS #1207

Open
skliper opened this issue Jan 13, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Implement coverage test for RTEMS #1207

skliper opened this issue Jan 13, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement
Milestone
Equuleus

Comments

@skliper
Copy link
Contributor

skliper commented Jan 13, 2022

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Coverage tests not implemented for RTEMS

Describe the solution you'd like
Add coverage tests

Describe alternatives you've considered
None

Additional context
None

Requester Info
Jacob Hageman - NASA/GSFC
jphickey added a commit to jphickey/osal that referenced this issue Aug 10, 2022
@jphickey
Fix nasa#1207, Add wrapper targets to simplify app builds
a2b270c 
Adds the following functions to simplify tracking of dependencies
and use of interface libraries provided by CFE.

The goal is to reduce/eliminate the need to directly specify any
include paths or compile definitions for dependencies, relying
on target properties to do this instead.
@skliper skliper added this to the Equuleus milestone Dec 19, 2022
@thnkslprpt thnkslprpt mentioned this issue Mar 24, 2023
Open
2 tasks
@skliper
Copy link
Contributor Author

skliper commented Aug 8, 2024

Note the coverage is set here:

osal/src/unit-test-coverage/CMakeLists.txt

Line 32 in d6412df

set(OSALCOVERAGE_TARGET_OSTYPE "vxworks;shared" CACHE STRING "OSAL target(s) to build coverage tests for (default=all)")

TBH: the way it pulls in just some of the portable tests seems fragile since this isn't naturally in sync with what gets included for the actual ostype. I think portable as a separate group that includes coverage for all the portable units would be a better approach. Also should consider how/if it's possible to get coverage statistics on the BSP code, although some may be impossible since real functionality is required.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
Equuleus
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@skliper