Skip to content

Conversation

@ddeclerck
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@GitMensch
Copy link
Collaborator

Coverage does not work, so maybe the last rebase from 3.x is missing?

@ddeclerck
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ddeclerck commented Oct 21, 2025

Coverage does not work, so maybe the last rebase from 3.x is missing?

Either this or the commit that fixes that in 3.x has not yet been merged to trunk
EDIT: nope, the SVN commits were merged, so it's probably just the GitHub CI part
EDIT2: nope nope, there was no GitHub-specific CI part, it's just that trunk does trigger the negative count error while 3.x does not... I have to check something.

@ddeclerck
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Well, it came as a surprise : there were some wrong LCOV terminators (LCOV_EXCL_END instead of LCOV_EXCL_STOP), and even a missing LCOV_EXCL_START).
Then there was also an unused exclusion (statment.def) - which is weird since it appears to be used in 3.x. So I prefered to just request the error to be ignored.
And I aso add to pass an extra option to ignore the negative count.

@ddeclerck
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@GitMensch Is it okay if I commit to SVN the non-CI part of this PR ?

- name: Adjust testsuite
run: |
cd tests/testsuite.src
sed -i '' '/AT_SETUP(\[runtime check: write to internal storage (1)\])/a \
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Best is to always leave a note why we exclude something.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please explain why this is needed, especially if it isn't in 3.x

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As stated in my previous comment:

Then there was also an unused exclusion (statment.def) - which is weird since it appears to be used in 3.x. So I prefered to just request the error to be ignored.
And I aso add to pass an extra option to ignore the negative count.

So it's just because there are more errors/warnings in 4.x - don't know why.

@GitMensch
Copy link
Collaborator

What about MinGW? We found the whole BDB part to be broken and the runner using a different bash and buildtools in 3.x CI

@ddeclerck
Copy link
Collaborator Author

What about MinGW? We found the whole BDB part to be broken and the runner using a different bash and buildtools in 3.x CI

Haven't touched MinGW in this PR. That would need to be solved in 3.x first.

@ddeclerck ddeclerck force-pushed the fix_gc4_ci branch 2 times, most recently from b7cc45f to 073c07f Compare December 3, 2025 17:58
@GitMensch
Copy link
Collaborator

three lcov markers fixed upstream (actually one was wrong and was removed)

@ddeclerck ddeclerck force-pushed the fix_gc4_ci branch 6 times, most recently from 13de892 to dc2d2c2 Compare December 3, 2025 23:30
@ddeclerck
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@GitMensch Is this one okay to merge too ?
(mind the change to Makefile.am)

@GitMensch
Copy link
Collaborator

feel free to push the workspace definitions as those are this mirror's branch only - but I'm hesitate to have a difference beetween GC3 and GC4 in that Makefile - why should we need that?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants