Code Coverage Support

[Bob-Chen222]

Description of changes:

Hi @lockshaw, this is the PR for code coverage
I added code coverage support in cmake lists
My next step would be about integrating the output codecoverage into reviewable

Related Issues:

Linked Issues:

• Issue Add coverage metrics for unit tests in CI #1340

Issues closed by this PR:

• Closes #

---

This change is 

[lockshaw]

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Bob-Chen222)

---

CMakeLists.txt line 90 at r1 (raw file):

include(nccl)
include(CodeCoverage)
append_coverage_compiler_flags()

Does this mean we're always building with coverage instrumentation?

---

flake.nix line 100 at r1 (raw file):

              tl-expected
              lcov # for code coverage
              xdg_utils # for xdg-open to open html files

Use the version from the system instead. If xdg-open isn't present then proj can just shout at the user. It makes more sense to have the external system configure it since the whole point is to allow the user to configure which browser to open on their system

[Bob-Chen222]

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Bob-Chen222)

CMakeLists.txt line 90 at r1 (raw file):

include(nccl)
include(CodeCoverage)
append_coverage_compiler_flags()

Does this mean we're always building with coverage instrumentation?

flake.nix line 100 at r1 (raw file):

              tl-expected
              lcov # for code coverage
              xdg_utils # for xdg-open to open html files

Use the version from the system instead. If xdg-open isn't present then proj can just shout at the user. It makes more sense to have the external system configure it since the whole point is to allow the user to configure which browser to open on their system

Yes, it is currently always built with code coverage. I can add an optional flag for the build command so that we can choose whether to include code coverage. Do you think this would work?

[lockshaw]

@Bob-Chen222 Let's implement it in a separate PR--I'd like to get this merged.

It would be best for it to be bundled into a command, like proj test --coverage or something like that so users don't have to explicitly think about how stuff is built, etc. We can even have two build directories to avoid rebuilds. Can you create an issue and we can discuss it further there?

Also, reviewable is preferred over github comments where possible 🙂

[Bob-Chen222]

Done

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @lockshaw)

---

CMakeLists.txt line 90 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, lockshaw (Colin Unger) wrote…

Does this mean we're always building with coverage instrumentation?

created a new issue for this discussion

---

flake.nix line 100 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, Bob-Chen222 (Bob Chen) wrote…

Yes, it is currently always built with code coverage. I can add an optional flag for the build command so that we can choose whether to include code coverage. Do you think this would work?

Just deleted the xdg-open from flake.nix

[lockshaw]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @Bob-Chen222)