Switch coverage from gcov to lcov

[htuch]

We need this for two reasons:

1. clang coverage.

2. Excluding lines such as NOT_IMPLEMENTED and NOT_REACHED.

We know lcov is really slow from bazelbuild/bazel#1118, but since we use a single test binary it shouldn't be too bad, maybe a couple of minutes for the test (vs. 30 mins + when running with all the tests producing individual lcov reports).

[mattklein123]

Sweet. This would also resolve #858

[htuch]

Now we just need to find someone enthusiastic enough to enter the Bazel coverage vortex of doom. Count me in as a P2 if there is no such volunteer.

[htuch]

This would also probably have the nice side effect that we wouldn't need to be forcing gcovr 3.3, which isn't standard in Ubuntu 14.04.

[mattklein123]

Frankly, I think someone from the Bazel team should enter their own vortex of doom and deal with this so they can "eat their own dogfood."

[htuch]

So, one issue we have today in a non-CI setting is that the clang runs actually fail silently, with the only symptom a 0.00 coverage results and empty coverage HTML for the Envoy sources. It looks like under the hood that gcov segfaults, gcovr hides it. I'm going to make some doc and add some run_envoy_bazel_coverage.sh safeguards to deal with this. @rlazarus @hennna.

[alyssawilk]

I have a build with have lcov "working" (horribly hackery generating HTML reports) but it currently claims we don't have coverage for a whole bunch of trailing braces despite a number of attempts to minimize code optimization. As far I can tell is a known issue with clang and lcov and you "fix" by using coverage annotations to functionally comment out all of the optimized end braces

We could go and dehackify my scripts and // LCOV_EXCL_LINE a bunch of end braces, or we can stick with gcov. I lean towards the latter because while a one-off LCOV_EXCL_LINE sweep isn't bad, the annoyance of dealing with it for incremental code changes makes me want to stick with gcov until lcov is more aggressive about identifying these correctly.

@mattklein123 thoughts?

[mattklein123]

@alyssawilk yeah I agree. Now that we have the ability to easily generate coverage for people as part of CI, it seems this is less urgent. Perhaps we can just leave this issues open for tracking and wait for clang/lcov/bazel to fix this properly?

[alyssawilk]

SGTM.

My horrible horrible horrible hacks documented for posterity over in #1800

Basically:
*comment out all the tests that crashed coverage runs
*create a docker image with lcov installed. I created a local one and tagged the image ID 'latest'
I suggest just adding it upstream and rolling back to avoid the extra docker hassle.
*edit bazel/envoy_build_system.bzl and add "-fprofile-arcs" "-ftest-coverage" (others optional, I was playing around)
*move foo.sh to /tmp/envoy-docker-build/tmp/_bazel_bazel/

• change all my hard-coded bazel directory hashes to your hard coded directory hash :-P
  IMAGE_ID=latest ./ci/run_envoy_docker.sh './ci/do_ci.sh bazel.covbuild'
  IMAGE_ID=latest ./ci/run_envoy_docker.sh './ci/do_ci.sh bazel.cov'

Look at /tmp/envoy-docker-build/tmp/_bazel_bazel/your_hash_here/output/index.html

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 30 days. It will be closed in the next 7 days unless it is tagged "help wanted" or other activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[stale]

This issue has been automatically closed because it has not had activity in the last 37 days. If this issue is still valid, please ping a maintainer and ask them to label it as "help wanted". Thank you for your contributions.