[WIP] Use test_runner for coverage testing

[wilzbach]

As discussed in #4719 we have run into some troubles with the reporting of the coverage between the test_runner and individual tests. This PR is there to continue testing for this problem.

(while this PR will increase coverage, it does so by running both the test_runner and individual builds)

[codecov-io]

Current coverage is 88.41% (diff: 100%)

Merging #4731 into master will decrease coverage by 0.33%

@@             master      #4731   diff @@
==========================================
  Files           121        124      +3   
  Lines         74072      77039   +2967   
  Methods           0          0           
  Messages          0          0           
  Branches          0          0           
==========================================
+ Hits          65740      68112   +2372   
- Misses         8332       8927    +595   
  Partials          0          0           

Powered by Codecov. Last update d753c8e...116dd31

[andralex]

Love it. @MartinNowak?

[wilzbach]

Love it. @MartinNowak?

@andralex we have discovered some weird issues with coverage reporting when run with the test_runner (see #4719 for details, i.e. when run with the test_runner about 1.1K lines weren't counted), so unfortunately this shouldn't be merged before we haven't figured out the root cause :7

[MartinNowak]

As discussed in #4719 we have run into some troubles with the reporting of the coverage between the test_runner and individual tests. This PR is there to continue testing for this problem.

Can we please file a Bugzilla ticket for the problem in #4719.
I think it's fine to run individual tests, though it might trigger ugly bugs, b/c linking a module with -unittest against phobos containing that same module is a bit of a hack.

[wilzbach]

Can we please file a Bugzilla ticket for the problem in #4719.

Sorry - https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16397

I think it's fine to run individual tests, though it might trigger ugly bugs, b/c linking a module with -unittest against phobos containing that same module is a bit of a hack.

It seems that for now we are stuck with this hack :/

[andralex]

@MartinNowak merge this for now?

[andralex]

@MartinNowak there's one way to get your attention :)