Support enabling Code Coverage for all targets in scheme test action

[lucasromanomr]

Added support for enable code coverage for all targets.

For auto scheme generation default valou ir False

xcodeproj(
        …
        scheme_autogeneration_config = xcschemes.autogeneration_config(
             test = xcschemes.autogeneration.test(
                 test_options = xcschemes.test_options(
                     app_language = "en",
                     app_region = "US",
                     code_coverage = False,
                 )
             )
        ),
        …
)

For configure in scheme:

xcschemes.scheme(
        …
        test = xcschemes.test(
            …
            test_options = xcschemes.test_options(
                app_language = "en",
                app_region = "US",
                code_coverage = True,
            ),
            …
        ),
        …
)

[brentleyjones]

Can you rebase?

[erneestoc]

curious, was there a change that would make coverage work now? this is just for the schema and we'd still need something like this #1119 (comment) correct?

[brentleyjones]

AFAIK coverage in Xcode is still broken.

[lucasromanomr]

Can you rebase?

Yes, I will check everything I have here to do a rebase, and modify something if necessary.

curious, was there a change that would make coverage work now? this is just for the schema and we'd still need something like this #1119 (comment) correct?

The coverage is still broken, what is done here is just to set it as an option to enable, here we use internal adjustments to achieve coverage.

[lucasromanomr]

@brentleyjones After a while I went back to implement it, I did a rebase to incorporate the latest changes, and I also tested it in the project, and everything worked :)

One point to note is that Xcode coverage is still not working. This is just an option to enable it. Internally, we use a workaround to have coverage, which is why we implemented this option to enable it by default.

[brentleyjones]

What’s the workaround?

[lucasromanomr]

What’s the workaround?

It would be following the same approach as here: #1119 (comment)

However, implemented differently.

In this case, internally at PicPay, we looked at the path of two apps and then at where several modules are located.

Specific configurations were added to the module target, and the apps were separated (in this case, we have two apps).

diff --git a/tools/worker/swift_runner.cc b/tools/worker/swift_runner.cc
index 6610e589e..e0807a4ee 100644
--- a/tools/worker/swift_runner.cc
+++ b/tools/worker/swift_runner.cc
@@ -302,6 +302,25 @@ bool SwiftRunner::ProcessArgument(
     }
 #endif
   };
+  
+  auto add_prefix_map_flags_for_custom_coverage = [&](const std::string& flag, const std::string& modules_dir_name) {
+    // cwd real (execution root)
+    const auto cwd = std::filesystem::current_path();
+
+    // Calcula target_path = canonical(cwd / modules_dir_name).parent_path();
+    const auto target_path = std::filesystem::canonical(cwd / modules_dir_name).parent_path();
+
+    consumer(flag);
+    consumer(std::filesystem::current_path().string() + "=" + target_path.string());
+
+#if __APPLE__
+    std::string developer_dir = "__BAZEL_XCODE_DEVELOPER_DIR__";
+    if (bazel_placeholder_substitutions_.Apply(developer_dir)) {
+        consumer(flag);
+        consumer(developer_dir + "=/PLACEHOLDER_DEVELOPER_DIR");
+    }
+#endif
+  };
 
   if (arg[0] == '@') {
     changed = ProcessPossibleResponseFile(arg, consumer);
@@ -313,6 +332,15 @@ bool SwiftRunner::ProcessArgument(
         // without breaking hermiticity.
         add_prefix_map_flags("-debug-prefix-map");
         changed = true;
+      } else if (new_arg == "-app-coverage-hack") {
+        add_prefix_map_flags_for_custom_coverage("-coverage-prefix-map", "Modules");
+        changed = true;
+      } else if (new_arg == "-app-coverage-hack-app-app1") {
+        add_prefix_map_flags_for_custom_coverage("-coverage-prefix-map", "App1");
+        changed = true;
+      } else if (new_arg == "-app-coverage-hack-app-app2") {
+        add_prefix_map_flags_for_custom_coverage("-coverage-prefix-map", "App2");
+        changed = true;
       } else if (new_arg == "-coverage-prefix-pwd-is-dot") {
         // Replace the $PWD with . to make the paths relative to the workspace
         // without breaking hermiticity.

in swift_library of app:

swift_library(
    name = "App1.library",
    srcs = [":App1SourceCode"],
    copts = select({
        "//Bazel_rules:scheme_prod": [],
        "//Bazel_rules:coverage_in_xcode": [
            "-Xwrapped-swift=-app-coverage-hack-app-1",
            "-D",
            "DEBUG",
        ],
        "//conditions:default": [
            "-D",
            "DEBUG",
        ],
    }),
    features = select({
        "//Bazel_rules:coverage_in_xcode": [
            "-swift.coverage_prefix_map",
            "-swift.file_prefix_map",
            "swift.coverage",
        ],
        "//conditions:default": [],
    }),
    linkopts = select({
        "//Bazel_rules:coverage_in_xcode": [
            "-fprofile-instr-generate",
        ],
        "//conditions:default": [],
    }),
    module_name = "App1",
    tags = ["manual"],
    visibility = ["//visibility:public"],
    deps = [...]
    alwayslink = True,
)

And in xcodeproj.bazelrc has a config:

build:rules_xcodeproj --//:enable_coverage_in_xcode=coverage

in BUILD.bazel

string_flag(
    name = "enable_coverage_in_xcode",
    build_setting_default = "no_coverage",
    visibility = ["//visibility:public"],
)

config_setting(
    name = "coverage_in_xcode",
    flag_values = {
        ":enable_coverage_in_xcode": "coverage",
    },
    visibility = ["//visibility:public"],
)

[lucasromanomr]

@brentleyjones Is there any possibility that we have this option of at least leaving a configuration to enable coverage already in the schema?

I know that there is no support yet for the coverage to generate the coverage as we mentioned above, but we saw that there are own implementations for their own projects that generate the coverage, would having the option to already leave the coverage in the schema be a problem?

[karim-alweheshy]

I wonder if we can achieve displaying the xcode coverage using

-path-equivalence

from https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/llvm-cov.html#llvm-cov-report

[brentleyjones]

Tests are failing.