From 3769d9343991388e66046c3c4317fce119e7dcd2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Gergely Polonkai Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:24:25 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Add draft for an upcoming post --- ...overage-with-codecov-for-libtool-projects.md | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) create mode 100644 _drafts/measuring-coverage-with-codecov-for-libtool-projects.md diff --git a/_drafts/measuring-coverage-with-codecov-for-libtool-projects.md b/_drafts/measuring-coverage-with-codecov-for-libtool-projects.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d8eb1ab --- /dev/null +++ b/_drafts/measuring-coverage-with-codecov-for-libtool-projects.md @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +--- +layout: post +title: "Measuring code coverage with codecov for libtool projects" +author: + name: "Gergely Polonkai" + email: "gergely@polonkai.eu" +--- + +I have recently found [codecov][https://codecov.io/]; they offer free +services for public GitHub projects. As I have recently started writing +tests for my SWE-GLib project, I decided to give it a go. Things are not +this easy if you use GNU Autotools and libtool, though… + +The problem here is that these tools generate output under `src/.libs/` +(given that your sources are under `src/`) and `gcov` has hard times +finding the coverage data files. Well, at least in the codecov +environment, it works fine on my machine.