excellent stuff, thanks :)
I was more thinking at a new CI job then extend "Run GNU tests"

What about "Run GNU tests" and "Run GNU tests with coverage" ?

I very much appreciate this effort, but I'm concerned about adding this workflow to the usual CI runs.
The workflow triples the CI completion time from (an already too long) 1 hour to 3 hours.

And, in looking at the coverage diff, I don't see much of a coverage change either... only a few lines here with lots of them being changes to coverage of help message lines.

Maybe only enable it for merges to 'main'?

I think this link shows the correct coverage change of this pull request.

Hmm, if I understand it correctly, it is adding on top of the current one ?
it isn't a separate result?

I think this link shows the correct coverage change of this pull request.

@xxyzz , That's definitely a much better gain (on the order of ~500 net line coverage gain)!

Thanks for showing me that comparison mode.

So, any ideas about how can we add this in a way that doesn't severely slow the CI for regular PRs?
An hour seems manageable, if only barely, for the current commit cadence, but three seems too far out.

I suspect the test runs slower because optimizations are disabled. I already let the new job only runs on the main branch in the last commit as you suggested.

I approved earlier a patch from @rivy before
it caused conflicts here :( sorry
could you please fix them?
thanks

@xxyzz , I'm happy to fix the merge conflicts (especially since I caused them ☺️).

I want to merge some maintenance work (PR #3090) on the configuration and 'util' scripts first, then I'll rebase your additions on top and push them back here. Ok?

Alright, thanks for solving the conflicts.

@xxyzz , I've rebased this on top of #3090, preserving your intent as I could see it.
When #3090 is merged, I'll update this commit set for you to review and revise.

let's see :)
many thanks

I should run sudo at the end of the shell file... There are many permission errors in the log: https://github.com/xxyzz/coreutils/runs/5180735222?check_suite_focus=true#step:8:1688

@xxyzz quick question, how can I use codecov to compare the gnu vs rust testsuite ? :)

I noticed that you have

        flags: gnutests
        name: gnutests

but I don't see them on https://app.codecov.io/gh/uutils/coreutils

The GNU tests report only created when commits pushed to the main branch, so only the merge commits have it. Codecov says "Flags have been temporarily removed" in the compare page overview tab, but the app subdomain still has it. And as the notice said, flags can be used on files.

thanks again :)

One more question @xxyzz
it seems that the coverage diff analysis in PR is using GNU's as comparison
does it ring a bell ?

 codecov/project Successful in 1s — 69.31% (-4.34%) compared to f11ac4b 

f11ac4b is a merge commit, so it has one more GNU coverage report then a PR. Now the GNU coverage job takes around one hour to finish, maybe it's time to enable it in pull requests so it can be compared?

Sounds good :)