Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <42C2E174.7020806@debrunners.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:59:16 -0700
From: Daniel John Debrunner <djd@debrunners.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derby Development <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Code coverage for 10.1.1.0 candidate
References: <42BCAEF6.8030402@yngvi.org>
In-Reply-To: <42BCAEF6.8030402@yngvi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ramandeep Kaur wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I ran code coverage for 10.1.1.0 candidate and the results are as
> following:
> 
> EMMA Coverage Report (generated Fri Jun 24 17:56:25 PDT 2005)
> 
> OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY
> Class % ---------- 89%  (1062/1188)
> Method % ------- 73%  (14688/20201)
> Block % --------- 69%  (440815/640728)

Thanks for the numbers, Raman.

Just to compare Raman's numbers from 2005/4/27 were

Class %  90% (1057/1172)
Method   73% (14464/19856)
Block    69% (431895/629256)

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200504.mbox/%3c426FC866.30401@yngvi.org%3e

Mostly steady, though it seems 16 new classes were added and only 5 get
tested using tests in derbyall. Hopefully Raman can start mailing the
details of the coverage available so we could see which new classes were
not tested etc. And of course the details we allow us to get to a state
where we can trust the results, and ensure that all classes in the
report are part of the released jars and only classes in the released
jars are included. At least that's my interest in code coverage numbers,
others may be interested in other aspects.

Dan.