Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
The idea with the emma.active property was that setting it (to "")
would enable extra permissions in the policy files that were needed
when measuring code coverage. If the emma.active property is not set,
these permissions should be ignored by the security manager, to avoid
them affecting the regular testing by accident. These permissions
should only be needed if you are running with classes or jar files that
have been instrumented with EMMA. If you are just running regular
testing without EMMA-instrumented code, they should not be needed.
On 3/3/08, Daniel John Debrunner <email@example.com> wrote:
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Around line 401 of jvm.java there is code that sets the
other properties that are used by the harness,
I meant "used by the policy file"
Yes, thx, I was thinking the same thing. I got better results when I
added -Demma.active="" to my -Djvmflags. My -Djvmflags now show:
We'll see how that goes...
When running the junit tests the emma.active property is automatically
set by the SercurityManagerSetup if it finds a specific EMMA-class on
the classpath, so that the junit tests can be run with classes and jars
that are instrumented with EMMA. Something similar (as Dan suggests)
could be done with the old harness to make it easier to measure code
coverage for those tests.
If the changes for DERBY-3445 affects the old harness tests, then it
was unintentional and probably a bug.