[erlang-questions] Fw: ct_cover broken when using packages
Tue Dec 16 10:58:25 CET 2008
Ops, was sent with wrong account...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas Stenius"
To: "Tim Watson" <>; <>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] ct_cover broken when using packages
> I've run into similar problems when using packages, when including for
> instance the eunit.hrl file, which has defines that will run into the same
> problem of referring to global packages without the needed leading dot.
> In my opinion, the package system is broken, in that code is dependent on
> the package layout for accessing the global scope, so I dropped it.
> Doesn't look like the Erlang/OTP distro uses the package functionality at
> all any way..
> But I'd rather like seeing this issue addressed and fixed, since now all
> my modules resides in only one dir, and with quite extensive names, which
> should rather be a path..
> Sorry, no help here, just want to add my view to let out that we're more
> with similiar issues.
> Best regards,
> Andreas Stenius
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Watson" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 1:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] ct_cover broken when using packages
>> Hi all,
>> I've noticed that the cover tool seems to break when using packages.
>> It appears that the cover tool inserts executable code into your
>> functions such as this:
>> myfunction() ->
>> %% do something
>> ets:<some_function>, %% inserted by cover
>> %% etc
>> This would be fine except that in a module module 1 contained within a
>> package package1, the atom ets is resolved to 'package1.module1.ets'
>> which doesn't exist (hopefully!). The correct behaviour would be to
>> insert '.ets' or to dynamically add an "-import(ets)." to the module
>> so that 'ets' resolves to '.ets' instead.
>> Has anyone else come across this? Is there a planned fix?
>> Many thanks,
>> Tim Watson
>> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions