Missing test coverage for lib/os/crc*.c

[andrewboie]

We have a bunch of C files in lib/os for computing CRC values. These are not being tested. LCOV shows 42.9% line coverage for crc16_sw.c, and zero coverage for crc32_sw.c, crc7_sw.c, crc8_sw.c. Need to get these up to 100% coverage including branches.

[aescolar]

@andrewboie Did you account for its unit test? the codecov report seems to indicate they are quite well covered:
https://codecov.io/gh/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/tree/master/lib/os

[andrewboie]

@aescolar we are not getting any of this stuff when we run coverage reports using gcovr/lcov.
Someone needs to fix that.

[aescolar]

@aescolar we are not getting any of this stuff when we run coverage reports using gcovr/lcov.
Someone needs to fix that.

@andrewboie Do you mean we don't when run with the QEMU target? ( The unit tests are their own target: sanitycheck -p unit_testing -C , and the crc is covered by unit tests (their only user actually))
The old codecov report was based on everything run in the 1st CI instance (which should include unit_testing, native_posix and nrf52_bsim).

[andrewboie]

and the crc is covered by unit tests (their only user actually))

Why are the CRC tests a special snowflake? Why is nothing else using this?
This is a total, inconsistent mess!!

[aescolar]

Don't ask me, it was there before I joined the project.
But you can see the positive side of it: the CRC test is a test of the unit tests and all related infrastructure ;-)

[nashif]

last time I tried I was not able to combine results generated by qemu targets with native_poisx and unit_test.

crc in any case is well covered with the unit_test, shows 100% here when I run locally.

[andrewboie]

@nashif what should we do about this with respect to our code coverage reports?
Should I convert this into a standard ztest? Leave it alone?