[erlang-questions] ct_cover broken when using packages
Thu Dec 18 19:23:55 CET 2008
Thanks for the tip of using import in this case, for some reason I hadn't
thought of it..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Watson" <watson.timothy@REDACTED>
To: "Andreas Stenius" <andreas.stenius@REDACTED>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] ct_cover broken when using packages
> Hi Andreas,
> Yeah the package system implementation isn't ideal - not even make:all
> will work unless you write (or generate) an Emakefile which specifies
> each of the source directories explicitly. You shouldn't have to do
> this sort of thing, it should "just work" imho.
> We do use packages, because our applications are packaged (and
> released) both as discrete Erlang/OTP releases and as components
> (depending on the needs of the target environment in question), so we
> would end up with names like
> 'bss_billing_dispatch_control_routing_server' which is something I'm
> just not willing to type! :)
> The work around is to include an import for 'ets' in your modules,
> which if you're averse to including in the production code (although
> it doesn't really matter in reality), can be stripped out using cpp or
> the like:
> %% some *real* imports/directives/etc
> -import(ets). %% hack to keep cover happy
> This works, but I'd like to see it fixed nonetheless.
> On 16/12/2008, Andreas Stenius <andreas.stenius@REDACTED> wrote:
>> 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
>> 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.
>> look like the Erlang/OTP distro uses the package functionality at all any
>> But I'd rather like seeing this issue addressed and fixed, since now all
>> 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" <watson.timothy@REDACTED>
>> To: <erlang-questions@REDACTED>
>> 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