Skip to content

Conversation

@jvdp1
Copy link
Member

@jvdp1 jvdp1 commented Jan 24, 2026

The CI for testing the modularization of stdlib must be divided in several workflows as the number of workflows increase exponentially with the number of modules.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 24, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 68.55%. Comparing base (de3e59f) to head (eb838cb).
⚠️ Report is 15 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1100   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   68.55%   68.55%           
=======================================
  Files         396      396           
  Lines       12746    12746           
  Branches     1376     1376           
=======================================
  Hits         8738     8738           
  Misses       4008     4008           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@jvdp1 jvdp1 requested a review from Copilot January 24, 2026 15:09
Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copilot encountered an error and was unable to review this pull request. You can try again by re-requesting a review.

@jvdp1 jvdp1 marked this pull request as ready for review January 24, 2026 15:48
Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 11 out of 11 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.


💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@jvdp1
Copy link
Member Author

jvdp1 commented Jan 25, 2026

Should we try to merge this PR before releasing v0.8.1?

@jalvesz
Copy link
Contributor

jalvesz commented Jan 25, 2026

in the previous PR you introduced a cmake function ADD_SUBDIR to manage internally the conditional inclusion. Is this function accessible from example and tests ? if so, I think it would be interesting to use it else-where to unify the treatment of conditional build.

@jvdp1
Copy link
Member Author

jvdp1 commented Jan 25, 2026

in the previous PR you introduced a cmake function ADD_SUBDIR to manage internally the conditional inclusion. Is this function accessible from example and tests ? if so, I think it would be interesting to use it else-where to unify the treatment of conditional build.

No, it is not available from example and tests, mainly because ADD_SUBDIR also includes a rule to append an included library to a list for target_link_libraries.
However, local macros could be added for both example and tests. Would this be helpful?

@jvdp1
Copy link
Member Author

jvdp1 commented Jan 25, 2026

in the previous PR you introduced a cmake function ADD_SUBDIR to manage internally the conditional inclusion. Is this function accessible from example and tests ? if so, I think it would be interesting to use it else-where to unify the treatment of conditional build.

No, it is not available from example and tests, mainly because ADD_SUBDIR also includes a rule to append an included library to a list for target_link_libraries. However, local macros could be added for both example and tests. Would this be helpful?

After a quick look, this approach for example and tests would require additional modifications, in addition to adding ADD_SUBDIR(name), because, for example, the subdirectory random must be added conditionally on STDLIB_STATS.
Something like ADD_SUBDIR(cppname subdir) could be added. But it might be too verbose for most cases.

@jalvesz
Copy link
Contributor

jalvesz commented Jan 25, 2026

I see, I thought it might be useful for maintenance purpose but it is not a must.

@jvdp1
Copy link
Member Author

jvdp1 commented Jan 26, 2026

Thank you. I will merge this PR, as it implemtents only changes to the build system, with the default behaviour being unchanged.

@jvdp1 jvdp1 merged commit ed0b0c9 into fortran-lang:master Jan 26, 2026
78 of 79 checks passed
@jvdp1 jvdp1 deleted the module_io branch January 26, 2026 07:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants