Issue #13667 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).


Sorry for the late reply.  I'm positive for this proposal.

There is the same request #13838, which reminds me of this ticket.  That issue proposes `Coverage.enabled?`.  I'm unsure, but `running?` seems a bit better to me because the starting API is not `Coverage.enabled = true` but `Coverage.start`.

Any opinions?  If there is no strong objection, I will choose `running?`.

----------------------------------------
Feature #13667: Add Coverage.running? to quickly check if Coverage is enabled.
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13667#change-66272

* Author: burke (Burke Libbey)
* Status: Assigned
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: mame (Yusuke Endoh)
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
Since we can't `RubyVM::InstructionSequence#to_binary` when `Coverage` is running, it is useful to be able to ask ruby if coverage is active.

This is possible with `Coverage.peek_result`, but not efficient, since it involves quite a bit of data copying.

I've used the private symbol `rb_get_coverages` in [bootsnap](https://github.com/Shopify/bootsnap/pull/63) for now but this feels worth exposing publicly.

```
> Benchmark.realtime { 100.times{ Coverage.peek_result } }
=> 1.3659249999909662
> Benchmark.realtime { 100.times{ Bootsnap::CompileCache::Native.coverage_running? } }
=> 5.099998088553548e-05
```

Example usage:

```
class RubyVM::InstructionSequence
  def load_iseq(path)
    return nil if defined?(Coverage) && Coverage.running?
    # ...
  end
end
```

---Files--------------------------------
0001-Add-Coverage.enabled-to-quickly-check-if-coverage-is.patch (1.97 KB)


-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>