db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Manjula Kutty" <manjula.ku...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Code Coverage Results for 10.4.1.3
Date Thu, 08 May 2008 16:40:15 GMT
I did instrument all the jars (including the locale jars) except
derbyTesting.jar. Did you use EMMA with ant?

Manjula


On 5/8/08, Henri van de Scheur <Henri.Vandescheur@sun.com> wrote:
>
> Hi again!
>
> I do not understand these differences. I have instrumented the same jars,
> but not all. I did not include derbyTesting.jar and the derbyLocale*.jars.
> So I instrumented the 5 following jars: derby.jar, derbyclient.jar,
> derbynet.jar, derbyrun.jar and derbytools.jar.
> I hope to find an explanation when I can compare your reports with mine.
>
> Henri
> Manjula Kutty wrote:
>
> I took the 10.4.1.3 Release candidate jars.
> I used the sun jdks. Also is there a chance that I was giving all
> permission to all the codebases in the derby_tests policy file?
>
> -Manjula
>
>
> On 5/7/08, Henri van de Scheur <Henri.Vandescheur@sun.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Manjula!
> >
> > I was able to fix the problem with linking the source-code, so now the
> > site I mentioned before shows correct and complete results.
> > To summarize and compare with your results:
> > OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > all classes: 90%  (1264/1397)
> > Method : 75%  (16948/22513)
> > Block : 73%  (479495/660441)
> > Line : 71%  (100760/141054)
> >
> > OVERALL STATS SUMMARY
> > total packages: 89
> > total executable files: 1280
> > total classes: 1397
> > total methods: 22513
> > total executable lines: 141054
> >
> > So we see a couple of (general) differences:
> >
> >    1. In general you report higher numbers for the totals
> >    2. In general I find higher numbers for coverage
> >
> > Can this be explained by just the differences in our jvm's (as different
> > vendors) or should we investigate more?
> > For my numbers I did a little workaround regarding the source-code: I
> > used the source-code from the 10.4-branch and not the official 10.4.1.3
> >
> > Thanks !
> >
> > Henri
> >
> > Manjula Kutty wrote:
> >
> > Hi Henri
> >
> > I ran suites.all. I used my derby_tests policy (Actually the one which
> > gives all permission). I ran it with jdk142, 15 and 16. I will be linking
> > the full report to the wiki.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Manjula
> >
> >
> > On 5/6/08, Henri van de Scheur <Henri.Vandescheur@sun.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Manjula Kutty wrote:
> > >
> > > > OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY
> > > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > > all classes: 87%  (1226/1404) Method : 74%  (16629/22556)
> > > > Block : 69%  (486715/704201)
> > > > Line : 69%  (101022.4/146764)
> > > >
> > > > OVERALL STATS SUMMARY
> > > > total packages: 90
> > > > total executable files: 1286
> > > > total classes: 1404
> > > > total methods: 22556
> > > > total executable lines: 146764
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Manjula.
> > > >
> > > Hi Manjula!
> > >
> > > What testsuite did you use and which jvm-versions?
> > > I used Emma to run with suitesAll on jvm1.4, jvm1.5 and jvm1.6 (both
> > > 32- and 64-mode). Results can be found here:
> > > http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/10.4.1.3_RC/Emma.html
> > > Unfortunately I have had some problems linking the source-code to
> > > these reports, but I plan to do that within the next 24 hours (if svn allows
> > > me....).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Henri
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Manjula.
>
>
>
> --
>
> With regards,
>
>
>
> Henri van de Scheur, Database Technology Group,
> Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway
>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Manjula.

Mime
View raw message