BUG: Ginkgo not calculating as expected coverage

[segator]

tested on v.2.9.0

ginkgo -coverpkg=./... -coverprofile=ginko.out --output-dir build/ ./...

go test -coverpkg=./... -coverprofile=build/gotest.out ./...

number of lines in the ginkgo.out 85
number of lines in the gotest.out 773

I tried in specific folders within my project like ./cli where my cobra commands are in place
and same behaviour but at folder level, less lines of test are covered in ginkgo.
After comparing 2 files, I have the feeling that ginkgo only take into account coverage of code of the instructed folder, but this folder is possible is calling to functions in other packages.

[onsi]

hey there - this has to do with how Ginkgo switches paths when running multiple packages:

#995

right now one needs to specify all -coverpkg as absolute paths and ./... won't work. it's something i need to fix but haven't been able to prioritize yet.

[segator]

I see, is there any workarround we can set at cli meanwhile?

[onsi]

i really should fix it in ginkgo - i'll try to get to it soon. in the mean time if you avoid relative paths things should work. If the module you are testing is called example.com/foo/bar then I think you can do:

ginkgo  -coverpkg=example.com/foo/bar/... -coverprofile=ginko.out --output-dir build/  ./...

alternatively you can pass in a list of file paths. unfortunately it doesn't look like go lets you specify something like -coverpkg=/path/to/src/... but you can do -coverpkg=/path/to/a,/path/to/b

[onsi]

this should now be fixed in v2.9.1 - ginkgo -coverpkg=./... -r will now compute coverage for all code by all tests.

please give it a try and let me know if it works for you. then we can close this issue out.

[segator]

Yup Working, Thanks for the fix 🥇

[segator]

Something is still wrong, I see better coverage than before but I still get less lines of code coverage than using go test directly.

4215 vs 7030

[onsi]

odd - can you share a screenshot of all the output when you run go test and then all the output when you run ginkgo? also can you share exactly what you're running on the command line so i can make sure i'm following?

[onsi]

when i tested this locally i was getting identical % combined coverages on the command line. do you see a discrepancy there? or is the discrepancy only in the resulting coverprofile file?

if the latter then there may be more work i need to do now when merging the cover profiles

one thing you could try that would help be debug this is to see if you get the same issue when you run -coverpkg=github.com/your/module/... instead of ./...

[segator]

Full go test command

 go test -count=1 -coverpkg=./... -race -short -timeout 600s -coverprofile=build/gotest.out ./...

?       edgeproxy       [no test files]
ok      edgeproxy/cli   1.124s  coverage: 29.3% of statements in ./...
ok      edgeproxy/client/clientauth     0.248s  coverage: 4.2% of statements in ./...
ok      edgeproxy/client/proxy  0.839s  coverage: 10.7% of statements in ./...
?       edgeproxy/config        [no test files]
?       edgeproxy/daemon        [no test files]
?       edgeproxy/dialer        [no test files]
ok      edgeproxy/e2e   40.047s coverage: 62.0% of statements in ./...
?       edgeproxy/env   [no test files]
ok      edgeproxy/helm/test     0.483s  coverage: 2.7% of statements in ./...
?       edgeproxy/log   [no test files]
ok      edgeproxy/monitoring    0.226s  coverage: 7.0% of statements in ./...
?       edgeproxy/monitoring/router     [no test files]
?       edgeproxy/server        [no test files]
ok      edgeproxy/server/auth   1.091s  coverage: 10.7% of statements in ./...
?       edgeproxy/server/handlers       [no test files]
ok      edgeproxy/stream        1.113s  coverage: 2.7% of statements in ./...
?       edgeproxy/test  [no test files]
ok      edgeproxy/transport     0.111s  coverage: 9.7% of statements in ./...
?       edgeproxy/version       [no test files]

Full ginkgo command

ginkgo -r -p --randomize-all --randomize-suites  --race --succinct --keep-going --timeout 600s --output-dir build/ -coverpkg=./... -coverprofile=ginkgo.out ./...

=== RUN   TestJwtAuthenticatorSetSigningKeyPKCS8Key
--- PASS: TestJwtAuthenticatorSetSigningKeyPKCS8Key (0.00s)
=== RUN   TestJwtAuthenticatorSetSigningKeyPKCS1Key
--- PASS: TestJwtAuthenticatorSetSigningKeyPKCS1Key (0.66s)
=== RUN   TestJwtAuthenticatorSetSigningKeyUnsupportedKey
--- PASS: TestJwtAuthenticatorSetSigningKeyUnsupportedKey (0.01s)
=== RUN   TestJwtAuthenticatorSetSigningKeyInvalidKey
--- PASS: TestJwtAuthenticatorSetSigningKeyInvalidKey (0.00s)
PASS
coverage: 14.7% of statements in ./../../...
=== RUN   TestClientMonitoringCliDefaultMetricsPort
--- PASS: TestClientMonitoringCliDefaultMetricsPort (0.62s)
=== RUN   TestClientMonitoringCliCustomMetricsPort
--- PASS: TestClientMonitoringCliCustomMetricsPort (0.51s)
=== RUN   TestServerCli
=== RUN   TestServerCli/Log_formatted_in_JSON
=== RUN   TestServerCli/Detect_running_in_kubernetes
=== RUN   TestServerCli/Detect_running_in_prod_mode
=== RUN   TestServerCli/Verbose_enabled
=== RUN   TestServerCli/Debug_entry_printed
--- PASS: TestServerCli (0.71s)
    --- PASS: TestServerCli/Log_formatted_in_JSON (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestServerCli/Detect_running_in_kubernetes (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestServerCli/Detect_running_in_prod_mode (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestServerCli/Verbose_enabled (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestServerCli/Debug_entry_printed (0.00s)
PASS
coverage: 29.5% of statements in ./../...
=== RUN   TestClientMetricsServer
--- PASS: TestClientMetricsServer (0.11s)
=== RUN   TestClientMonitoringServerGetMetrics
--- PASS: TestClientMonitoringServerGetMetrics (0.12s)
PASS
coverage: 38.8% of statements in ./../...
=== RUN   TestSpireAuthorization
=== RUN   TestSpireAuthorization/Valid_Certificate_Authorized_User
=== RUN   TestSpireAuthorization/Valid_Certificate_Intermediate_Signed_Authorized_User
=== RUN   TestSpireAuthorization/Valid_Certificate_Intermediate_Signed_Authorized_User/Revoked_Certificate
=== RUN   TestSpireAuthorization/Valid_Certificate_UnAuthorized_User_is_forbidden
=== RUN   TestSpireAuthorization/Valid_Certificate_Not_Spiffe_SNI
=== RUN   TestSpireAuthorization/Certificate_Signed_by_unknown_authority
--- PASS: TestSpireAuthorization (39.46s)
    --- PASS: TestSpireAuthorization/Valid_Certificate_Authorized_User (4.67s)
    --- PASS: TestSpireAuthorization/Valid_Certificate_Intermediate_Signed_Authorized_User (10.27s)
        --- PASS: TestSpireAuthorization/Valid_Certificate_Intermediate_Signed_Authorized_User/Revoked_Certificate (0.06s)
    --- PASS: TestSpireAuthorization/Valid_Certificate_UnAuthorized_User_is_forbidden (3.46s)
    --- PASS: TestSpireAuthorization/Valid_Certificate_Not_Spiffe_SNI (9.20s)
    --- PASS: TestSpireAuthorization/Certificate_Signed_by_unknown_authority (8.63s)
=== RUN   TestE2EServerRequestMuxNoAuth
=== RUN   TestE2EServerRequestMuxNoAuth/512k10p
=== RUN   TestE2EServerRequestMuxNoAuth/1m5p
--- PASS: TestE2EServerRequestMuxNoAuth (17.40s)
    --- PASS: TestE2EServerRequestMuxNoAuth/512k10p (5.60s)
    --- PASS: TestE2EServerRequestMuxNoAuth/1m5p (10.88s)
=== RUN   TestGetClientMonitoring
--- PASS: TestGetClientMonitoring (1.04s)
=== RUN   TestServerRequestYamuxPingPongFile
=== RUN   TestServerRequestYamuxPingPongFile/1k100p
=== RUN   TestServerRequestYamuxPingPongFile/512k10p
=== RUN   TestServerRequestYamuxPingPongFile/1M2p
=== RUN   TestServerRequestYamuxPingPongFile/100M1p
--- PASS: TestServerRequestYamuxPingPongFile (9.85s)
    --- PASS: TestServerRequestYamuxPingPongFile/1k100p (0.14s)
    --- PASS: TestServerRequestYamuxPingPongFile/512k10p (0.48s)
    --- PASS: TestServerRequestYamuxPingPongFile/1M2p (0.23s)
    --- PASS: TestServerRequestYamuxPingPongFile/100M1p (8.95s)
=== RUN   TestServerRequestNoMuxPingPongFile
=== RUN   TestServerRequestNoMuxPingPongFile/1k100p
=== RUN   TestServerRequestNoMuxPingPongFile/512k10p
=== RUN   TestServerRequestNoMuxPingPongFile/1M2p
=== RUN   TestServerRequestNoMuxPingPongFile/100M1p
--- PASS: TestServerRequestNoMuxPingPongFile (7.38s)
    --- PASS: TestServerRequestNoMuxPingPongFile/1k100p (0.08s)
    --- PASS: TestServerRequestNoMuxPingPongFile/512k10p (0.31s)
    --- PASS: TestServerRequestNoMuxPingPongFile/1M2p (0.16s)
    --- PASS: TestServerRequestNoMuxPingPongFile/100M1p (6.80s)
PASS
coverage: 62.8% of statements in ./../...
=== RUN   TestConcurrentStreams
--- PASS: TestConcurrentStreams (0.03s)
PASS
coverage: 11.4% of statements in ./../...
[1678863909] Helm Suite [helm] - 6/6 specs - 15 procs 
------------------------------
• [0.096 seconds]
On helm rendering template with default values set fails to render because endpoint is not set [unitTest]
/datos/work/edge-edgeproxy/helm/test/template_test.go:27

  Captured StdOut/StdErr Output >>
  << Captured StdOut/StdErr Output
------------------------------
• [0.100 seconds]
On helm rendering template with default values set with edgeproxy client authentication enabled when rendering configmap not have secret volume mounted if secretName is not set [unitTest]
/datos/work/edge-edgeproxy/helm/test/template_test.go:115

  Captured StdOut/StdErr Output >>
  << Captured StdOut/StdErr Output
------------------------------
• [0.105 seconds]
On helm rendering template with default values set when edgeproxy endpoint is set renders sucesfully [unitTest]
/datos/work/edge-edgeproxy/helm/test/template_test.go:41

  Captured StdOut/StdErr Output >>
   << Captured StdOut/StdErr Output
------------------------------
• [0.104 seconds]
On helm rendering template with default values set with edgeproxy client authentication enabled when rendering configmap have secret volume mounted if secretName is set [unitTest]
/datos/work/edge-edgeproxy/helm/test/template_test.go:111

  Captured StdOut/StdErr Output >>
  << Captured StdOut/StdErr Output
------------------------------
• [0.121 seconds]
On helm rendering template with default values set with edgeproxy client authentication enabled when rendering deployment resource have secret volume mounted if secretName is set [unitTest]
/datos/work/edge-edgeproxy/helm/test/template_test.go:81

  Captured StdOut/StdErr Output >>
  << Captured StdOut/StdErr Output
------------------------------
• [0.125 seconds]
On helm rendering template with default values set with edgeproxy client authentication enabled when rendering deployment resource not have secret volume mounted if secretName is not set [unitTest]
/datos/work/edge-edgeproxy/helm/test/template_test.go:95

  Captured StdOut/StdErr Output >>
  << Captured StdOut/StdErr Output
------------------------------
 SUCCESS! 184.922883ms 
coverage: [no statements]
=== RUN   TestYamuxHandleConnection
=== RUN   TestYamuxHandleConnection/Successful_proxied_connection
=== RUN   TestYamuxHandleConnection/Connection_closed_without_data_sent
--- PASS: TestYamuxHandleConnection (0.10s)
    --- PASS: TestYamuxHandleConnection/Successful_proxied_connection (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestYamuxHandleConnection/Connection_closed_without_data_sent (0.10s)
=== RUN   TestEncodingFrames
--- PASS: TestEncodingFrames (0.00s)
=== RUN   TestInvalidRouterAction
--- PASS: TestInvalidRouterAction (0.00s)
=== RUN   TestReadFrame
--- PASS: TestReadFrame (0.00s)
PASS
coverage: 12.3% of statements in ./../...
=== RUN   TestSocksProxy
--- PASS: TestSocksProxy (0.03s)
=== RUN   TestToxicDialerDialLatency
--- PASS: TestToxicDialerDialLatency (0.81s)
=== RUN   TestTransparentProxy
--- PASS: TestTransparentProxy (0.00s)
PASS
coverage: 10.0% of statements in ./../../...
=== RUN   TestChainedAuthenticateOrder
=== RUN   TestChainedAuthenticateOrder/First_authenticate_engine_is_valid
=== RUN   TestChainedAuthenticateOrder/Second_authenticate_engine_is_the_only_one_valid
=== RUN   TestChainedAuthenticateOrder/all_authenticate_engine_are_not_valid
=== RUN   TestChainedAuthenticateOrder/all_authenticate_engine_but_secondary_is_executed_first
=== RUN   TestChainedAuthenticateOrder/secondary_fails_to_execute_but_first_is_valid
--- PASS: TestChainedAuthenticateOrder (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestChainedAuthenticateOrder/First_authenticate_engine_is_valid (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestChainedAuthenticateOrder/Second_authenticate_engine_is_the_only_one_valid (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestChainedAuthenticateOrder/all_authenticate_engine_are_not_valid (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestChainedAuthenticateOrder/all_authenticate_engine_but_secondary_is_executed_first (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestChainedAuthenticateOrder/secondary_fails_to_execute_but_first_is_valid (0.00s)
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardGoodUser
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardGoodUser/allowed_ip:port
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardGoodUser/allowed_domain:port
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardGoodUser/not_allowed_ip:port
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardGoodUser/allowed_domain_not_allowed_ip:port
--- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardGoodUser (0.03s)
    --- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardGoodUser/allowed_ip:port (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardGoodUser/allowed_domain:port (0.03s)
    --- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardGoodUser/not_allowed_ip:port (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardGoodUser/allowed_domain_not_allowed_ip:port (0.00s)
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardBadUser
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardBadUser/not_allowed_ip:https_port
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardBadUser/not_allowed_ip:random_port
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardBadUser/not_allowed_domain:port
--- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardBadUser (0.01s)
    --- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardBadUser/not_allowed_ip:https_port (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardBadUser/not_allowed_ip:random_port (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardBadUser/not_allowed_domain:port (0.00s)
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardUnknownUser
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardUnknownUser/not_allowed_ip:https_port
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardUnknownUser/not_allowed_ip:random_port
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardUnknownUser/not_allowed_domain:port
--- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardUnknownUser (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardUnknownUser/not_allowed_ip:https_port (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardUnknownUser/not_allowed_ip:random_port (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerAuthorizeForwardUnknownUser/not_allowed_domain:port (0.00s)
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerConfigReload
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerConfigReload/allowed_domain_not_allowed_ip:port
=== RUN   TestPolicyEnforcerConfigReload/allowed_domain_allowed_ip:port_after_config_reload
--- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerConfigReload (1.01s)
    --- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerConfigReload/allowed_domain_not_allowed_ip:port (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestPolicyEnforcerConfigReload/allowed_domain_allowed_ip:port_after_config_reload (1.00s)
PASS
coverage: 18.1% of statements in ./../../...
composite coverage: 75.2% of statements

Ginkgo ran 9 suites in 1m22.810867035s
Test Suite Passed

NOTE: I unknown if is important but not all tests are yet migrated to ginkgo I still have standard go tests pending to migrate to ginkgo, Nevertheless I saw some of this not migrated are test generating some coverage.

Executing recursive but coverage for 1 package only

go test -count=1 -coverpkg=edgeproxy/cli -short -timeout 600s -coverprofile=build/gotest.out ./...

ginkgo -r -p --randomize-all --randomize-suites  --race --succinct --keep-going --timeout 600s --output-dir build/ -coverpkg=edgeproxy/cli -coverprofile=ginkgo.out ./...

758 vs 169 covered lines.

Let me now how can I help you to fix this, This is really blocking us the full migration to ginkgo at the moment :(

[onsi]

ok thanks - let's focus on just the single coverpkg:

can you rerun this case:

go test -count=1 -coverpkg=edgeproxy/cli -short -timeout 600s -coverprofile=build/gotest.out ./...

ginkgo -r -p --randomize-all --randomize-suites  --race --succinct --keep-going --timeout 600s --output-dir build/ -coverpkg=edgeproxy/cli -coverprofile=ginkgo.out ./...

but with -coverpkg=./edgeproxy/cli instead of -coverpkg=edgeproxy/cli

[onsi]

also - i appreciate some suites are ginkgo and others are testing.T tests. Do you have any individual suites where you mix ginkgo and testing.T? those will not work correctly when running with -p (that may or may not affect the coverage results)

also - is any of this open source so i can take a look or even try to run it locally?

[onsi]

ah... wait a minute. I just tried this in a dummy repo myself and was confused about what you meant by "lines of code coverage" and now I see you mean "number of lines in the coverprofile" - which is an implementation detail and not giving you actual coverage. For that you need to use go tool cover with either -func (to generate a list) or -html (to generate an interactive coverage webpage). I find I get identical output when go tool cover is used - even though the generated coverprofiles are different.

in the course of digging into this, however, I did come across some inconsistent behavior in go where the coverage percentages are computed differently if one uses ./... vs explicitly naming a list of packages to test. I'm checking again with the latest version of Go and may need to open an issue.

[onsi]

looks like go does in fact have some subtle issues when using coverpkg in this way:

golang/go#58770

i'm pretty sure ginkgo is doing ok at this point and that this is actually working now