[erlang-questions] Rebar/Cover and leex/yecc

Florian Waas flw@REDACTED
Wed May 15 22:37:22 CEST 2013

Quite right, Robert.

Since I run dialyzer explicitly controlled by the Makefile I can
simply exclude these files. Rationale being that the little bit of
not-generated code in there doesn't need a dialyzer scrub as much as
"regular" code. Not perfect, I know, but workable.

With Cover and its reporting things are a little more complicated
though. Rebar separates application from test sources and then reports
on each bucket. Since my check-in criteria are based among other
things on code coverage being above 90% having 2 files with abysmally
low coverage (~65%) makes this criterion a bit hard to enforce

Hence, I was wondering if anybody's gone through similar pains and
found a nice way to exclude these or, better still, mapped the
coverage numbers back to the original xrl/yrl files?


On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Robert Virding
<robert.virding@REDACTED> wrote:
> You also get a lot of dialyzer warnings as well from the leex boiler plate code. It is correct but irritating to see.
> Robert
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Florian Waas" <flw@REDACTED>
>> To: "erlang-questions" <erlang-questions@REDACTED>
>> Sent: Wednesday, 15 May, 2013 12:04:48 AM
>> Subject: [erlang-questions] Rebar/Cover and leex/yecc
>> Using rebar's reporting of coverage during eunit runs, I get coverage
>> numbers for the generated lexer/parser code which contains a ton of
>> boiler plate code from leexinc.hrl and yeccpre.hrl which is not
>> exercised. As a result, the coverage number is rather meaningless.
>> Anybody have ideas for workarounds? Elegant ways to exclude these
>> files from the report?
>> Thanks,
>> -fl.
>> _______________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list