Re: Coverage of code in our Starman process not counted?

Hi all,

As it turned out, using HTTP::Server::PSGI isn't too hard (I've got a prototype running on my branch 'master-try-coverage'). However, the server seems too simple for what we want from it: coverage testing slows the server down, resulting in consistent failure on the coverage-testing-VM (however, the point of failure isn't consistent).

I'm now wondering about a good mechanism to mitigate this problem. Should we run the application server behind nginx and have nginx serve the static files? If we do it that way, pressure on the Perl server might be sufficiently reduced?

Regards,

Erik.

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Erik Huelsmann <..hidden..> wrote:

Hi all,

After implementing BDD tests for setup.pm, our coverage % hasn't changed the slightest. While I had serious doubts that the code coverage hadn't changed, I left it alone, since we have lots of items to work on. OTOH, I'd really like to see a coverage figure which resembles actual code tested, so I started looking at it again.

https://github.com/pjcj/Devel--Cover/issues/50 suggests that there's no way to have starman figures extracted correctly. The same post suggests using HTTP::Server::PSGI (which comes with Plack) will work around this problem.

Does anybody have experience with this? Or even better, any help to get a solution which extracts and reports the coverage information would we highly appreciated!

--
Bye,

Erik.

http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.

Bye,

Erik.

http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.

Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.