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.

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

Improve test coverage. #1069

Merged
merged 29 commits into from
Feb 10, 2024
Merged

Improve test coverage. #1069

merged 29 commits into from
Feb 10, 2024

Conversation

jzmaddock
Copy link
Collaborator

Try and get all the special_functions/a*.hpp files up to 100%.

Try and get all the special_functions/a*.hpp files up to 100%.
@jzmaddock
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Refs #1068

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 21, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (e06b1b7) 85.24% compared to head (045a87e) 88.32%.
Report is 3 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #1069      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    85.24%   88.32%   +3.07%     
===========================================
  Files          875      762     -113     
  Lines        66568    64394    -2174     
===========================================
+ Hits         56745    56875     +130     
+ Misses        9823     7519    -2304     
Files Coverage Δ
include/boost/math/special_functions/acosh.hpp 100.00% <100.00%> (+10.00%) ⬆️
include/boost/math/special_functions/airy.hpp 100.00% <ø> (+1.40%) ⬆️
include/boost/math/special_functions/asinh.hpp 100.00% <100.00%> (+8.69%) ⬆️
include/boost/math/special_functions/atanh.hpp 100.00% <100.00%> (+13.79%) ⬆️
include/boost/math/special_functions/bernoulli.hpp 100.00% <ø> (+13.33%) ⬆️
include/boost/math/special_functions/bessel.hpp 100.00% <100.00%> (+16.66%) ⬆️
...lude/boost/math/special_functions/bessel_prime.hpp 98.92% <100.00%> (+14.61%) ⬆️
include/boost/math/special_functions/beta.hpp 96.10% <ø> (+21.29%) ⬆️
.../boost/math/special_functions/detail/bessel_i0.hpp 84.61% <ø> (+71.51%) ⬆️
test/acosh_test.hpp 72.50% <100.00%> (+3.05%) ⬆️
... and 14 more

... and 203 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e06b1b7...045a87e. Read the comment docs.

Remove I0 initializers and rely on C++11 thread safe static const initialization.
And don't try and run concept checks with test coverage collection.
Add some more tests for the code that can be reached.
Also fixes a bug in bessel_y_derivative_small_z_series corner case.
Improve overflow handling in the implementations themselves.
Kill some unused variable warnings.
Mark up code we think is unreachable but aren't sure about.
@ckormanyos
Copy link
Member

Dude it's massive +3 persent in one swath!

@jzmaddock
Copy link
Collaborator Author

OK folks, I hope this tranche of coverage improvement is good to go, I'll start a fresh PR for any more before the changes here get out of hand. @NAThompson there are a couple of drone failures in random_search_test which appear unrelated - tolerance too tight, or something non-deterministic in there?

@NAThompson
Copy link
Collaborator

NAThompson commented Feb 10, 2024

@jzmaddock : I noticed that yesterday and provided what I hoped was a fix; looks like I didn't quite get it.

I recommend merging over the failure and I'll hopefully figure this one out pretty quick . . .

@ckormanyos ckormanyos merged commit b421431 into develop Feb 10, 2024
67 of 68 checks passed
@ckormanyos
Copy link
Member

merging over the failure and I'll hopefully figure this one out pretty quick . . .

done. merged. Thank you John.

@ckormanyos
Copy link
Member

Ughhhh wait a minute. I just merged your branch. Not mine.

@ckormanyos
Copy link
Member

I guess I need to revert that commit? I hope I did not turn this into a mess.

@jzmaddock
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ughhhh wait a minute. I just merged your branch. Not mine.

Should be OK ;)

I recommend merging over the failure and I'll hopefully figure this one out pretty quick . . .

OK lets see what happens on develop

@jzmaddock
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I guess I need to revert that commit? I hope I did not turn this into a mess.

Should be OK unless someone notices any SNAFU's.

@ckormanyos
Copy link
Member

Indeed. I would just end up fumbling the fumble. I will merge my dos to develop.

Then we just have the remaining very few test failures.

@NAThompson NAThompson deleted the improve_coverage branch February 10, 2024 17:01
@ckormanyos
Copy link
Member

Should be OK unless someone notices any SNAFU's.

Thanky you John! Probably, with your expert help (as usual) we can dig out of this.

OK, so finally, I merged the new docs. This contains all your new coverage stuff. The docs look good, but the very few test failures are still present.

@ckormanyos
Copy link
Member

Should be OK

Thanky you John!

As far as I can tell, everything is now OK on develop. @NAThompson triggered a few runs in his new work in #1083, and drone, GHA are OK there. Thanks again @jzmaddock, and sorry about the back-and-forth.

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.

3 participants