Hello again,

I've attached my coverage results. The html file expects the css file
to be in the same directory. If you look at the html file, you'll see
that almost all of peg.scm is hit by the tests.

As far as I can tell, the two functions that are not tested are
keyword-flatten (line 512) and peg-string-compile (line 713). I looked
at these, but I don't understand what either of them does well enough
to test them yet.

Other than that, some error code is not hit, and the ends of some cond
clauses. These should be tested more, but I need to understand the
code more to know what will test them. There are also a few lines that
I find suspicious, in particular lines 39, 134-136, 146, 157, 165,
506-508, and 649. (Ludovic - sorry I haven't isolated test cases. I'm
just pointing these out now to show that possibly the test suite tests
more than the coverage makes it appear. In the future I might be able
to isolate the issues.)

Lines 14-15 look to me like a function that was used for debugging and
now serves no purpose.

Let me give a few more overall thoughts on peg.scm, after working with
it for a few more days. It looks like good code, but the documentation
isn't great. It took me several read-throughs to figure out what some
of it did, and I'm still not sure about those two functions that don't
have tests. (Although they are a small part of the overall module.)
I'm not sure what this means about its fitness to merge.

Noah

On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>> It should have produced $top_builddir/guile.info, which can be used as
>> input to LCOV to generate an HTML code coverage report
>> (http://ltp.sourceforge.net/coverage/lcov.php).
>
> Oh, that worked. The current tests check 92.6% of the lines in
> peg.scm, and 90.7% of the functions. I looked through lcov's HTML
> guide, and it looks like what the tests miss is almost all
> error-handling code. However, I must say that the HTML output looked a
> bit suspicious - for instance, there were places where the first line
> of a function was marked as hit, but the second line was not.
>
> On another note, I looked at the PEG documentation, and it was quite good.
>
> When I merged the 'mlucy' branch into Guile mainline, the merge went
> almost cleanly - the only issues were a page of links in Guile's
> documentation, which was a two-line issue, and ice-9/psyntax-pp.scm,
> which I fixed by choosing the mainline's version and had no problems.
>
> Given this, what are the issues blocking PEG being merged (if there
> are any)? I'd like to work on them.
>
> Noah
>