Attention is currently required from: Martin Roth, Julius Werner. Paul Fagerburg has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/54072 )
Change subject: tests: code coverage improvements ......................................................................
Patch Set 3:
(3 comments)
File tests/Makefile.inc:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/54072/comment/dc2413c4_b4f72c57 PS3, Line 195: coverage-unit-tests: unit-tests coverage-report-tests
make could decide to build the dependencies in parallel. […]
I didn't think of the parallel dependencies. Yeah, that's a problem.
[Using `coverage-report` instead of `coverage-report-tests` in this example because I'm changing that target.]
If I make coverage-report depend on unit-tests, the unit-tests target will build and run *all* of the unit tests. In some cases, you may only want a coverage report for the single unit test that we built, e.g. `COV=1 make tests/lib/uuid-test coverage-report`
I think the safest thing is to just remove that target. If you want all of the unit tests and a coverage report, then `COV=1 make unit-tests coverage-report`
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/54072/comment/4ada7737_04956e1d PS3, Line 199: coverage_rpt
nit: "coveratge_reports" might be better, but it's just my taste.
I had to add -tests to every target to get the main Makefile to use tests/Makefile.inc. I've made changes in the main Makefile to use 'coverage' as well as -tests to get into unit tests.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/54072/comment/6f6d5cf3_edcc05a1 PS3, Line 258: @echo ' clean-coverage-report-tests' : @echo ' - Remove the code coverage report'
nit: You can reformat this whole section to make all target names and their first line of descriptio […]
Fixed.