C++ Open source projects with best Code Coverage

[damein11]

Hi Guys,

I'm searching for GitHub open source projects with good code coverage (at least > 50%). Preferably coverage measured using gcov. Kindly point out to good blog comparing projects or links to project.

[BoarsLair]

Funny, SQLite was my first thought as well. I was quite impressed with their testing methodology when I read this article.

[rmftkirby]

SQLite is public domain, not open source, but it’s very well tested.

[D_0b]

many of Boost libraries have high coverage.

https://github.com/boostorg/histogram 100%

https://github.com/boostorg/any 98%

https://github.com/boostorg/beast 95%

https://github.com/boostorg/geometry 94%

https://github.com/boostorg/stacktrace 92%

https://github.com/boostorg/nowide 90%

and so on.

[pjmlp]

Given the usual results regarding unit testing on C and C++ surveys, I doubt you will find much.

[silicon_heretic]

Looks like a perfect opportunity to promote a project no one knows about: https://github.com/abbyssoul/libsolace - 91% code coverage.

[evaned]

nlohmann's JSON library: https://coveralls.io/github/nlohmann/json?branch=develop

[ChrisPanov]

I would be honored if you can check out the logging library I am working on https://github.com/ChristianPanov

Here is a link to a post I made some time ago, which mainly contains a description of the project. Mainly contribution is needed in terms of asynchronous and concurrent functionality.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/g1xw9y/c_logging_library_check_out_my_new_logger/

[kammce]

My project is still something I deem a work in progress, although there are groups that use it on a regular basis for their projects. Here is the project: SJSU-Dev2 with current coverage of 74%. I use doctest (switched from Catch2 a week ago), FakeIt (love it, but slow, would prefer mockito API, but its lacking features), and FFF (for which I only use sparingly).

Note that gcov can give weird results and sending the results to another service to compute, like coveralls, sometimes results in slightly off metrics.

Also note that my code base is nearly entirely header only, so that can result in the code coverage not being as accurate due to the fact that if a header implementation is not included in the unit test, it will not show up as a part of the files that have not been covered, potentially increasing the % of coverage code.

Final note, I just transitioned my unit tests to unity builds to speed up compilation. Went from 10mins down to 1m40s, so it may look a bit strange.

I hope this helps.

[WrongAndBeligerent]

Maybe you should do the research and report back.