Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 11:24:07 +0200
From: Henri van de Scheur <Henri.Vandescheur@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: Code Coverage Results for 10.4.1.3
In-reply-to: <59c2e1ec0805071107m482edd00r6886c96dd1fa3289@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: Henri.Vandescheur@Sun.COM
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <4822C6B7.5010200@sun.com>
Organization: Sun Microsystems Norway
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Boundary_(ID_Y2p40VKumDF0FDl73EYCbg)"
References: <59c2e1ec0805051237h255d1781t3bb6529004d8b3e0@mail.gmail.com>
 <48203F39.4000802@sun.com>
 <59c2e1ec0805061018w49e0df0dl948ab42c83f0ab40@mail.gmail.com>
 <48218BBE.1000700@sun.com>
 <59c2e1ec0805071107m482edd00r6886c96dd1fa3289@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080228)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_Y2p40VKumDF0FDl73EYCbg)
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

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 <http://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 
> <mailto: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 <http://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
>>     <mailto: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


--Boundary_(ID_Y2p40VKumDF0FDl73EYCbg)
Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi again!<br>
<br>
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.<br>
I hope to find an explanation when I can compare your reports with mine.<br>
<br>
Henri<br>
Manjula Kutty wrote:
<blockquote
 cite="mid:59c2e1ec0805071107m482edd00r6886c96dd1fa3289@mail.gmail.com"
 type="cite">
  <div>I took the <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://10.4.1.3">10.4.1.3</a>
Release candidate jars. </div>
  <div>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?</div>
  <div>&nbsp;</div>
  <div>-Manjula<br>
  <br>
&nbsp;</div>
  <div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/7/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Henri
van de Scheur</b> &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
 href="mailto:Henri.Vandescheur@sun.com">Henri.Vandescheur@sun.com</a>&gt;
wrote:</span>
  <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
 style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
    <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">Hi Manjula!<br>
    <br>
I was able to fix the problem with linking the source-code, so now the
site I mentioned before shows correct and complete results.<br>
To summarize and compare with your results:<br>
    <span>OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY<br>
--------------------------------------------------<br>
    </span><span>all classes: 90% &nbsp;(1264/1397) <br>
Method : 75% &nbsp;(16948/22513)<br>
Block : 73% &nbsp;(479495/660441)<br>
Line : 71% &nbsp;(100760/141054)<br>
    <br>
OVERALL STATS SUMMARY<br>
total packages: 89<br>
total executable files: 1280<br>
total classes: 1397<br>
total methods: 22513<br>
total executable lines: 141054</span><br>
    <br>
So we see a couple of (general) differences:<br>
    <ol>
      <li>In general you report higher numbers for the totals </li>
      <li>In general I find higher numbers for coverage </li>
    </ol>
Can this be explained by just the differences in our jvm's (as
different vendors) or should we investigate more?<br>
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 <a
 moz-do-not-send="true"
 onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
 href="http://10.4.1.3/" target="_blank">10.4.1.3</a><br>
    <br>
Thanks !<br>
    <span class="sg"><br>
Henri</span>
    <div><span class="e" id="q_119c30a92139d044_2"><br>
    <br>
Manjula Kutty wrote:
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <div>Hi Henri</div>
      <div>&nbsp;</div>
      <div>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.</div>
      <div>&nbsp;</div>
      <div>Thanks</div>
      <div>Manjula<br>
      <br>
&nbsp;</div>
      <div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/6/08, <b
 class="gmail_sendername">Henri van de Scheur</b> &lt;<a
 moz-do-not-send="true"
 onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
 href="mailto:Henri.Vandescheur@sun.com" target="_blank">Henri.Vandescheur@sun.com</a>&gt;
wrote:</span>
      <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
 style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
        <div><span>Manjula Kutty wrote:<br>
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
 style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px; padding-left: 1ex;">OVERALL
COVERAGE SUMMARY<br>
--------------------------------------------------<br>
all classes: 87% &nbsp;(1226/1404) Method : 74% &nbsp;(16629/22556)<br>
Block : 69% &nbsp;(486715/704201)<br>
Line : 69% &nbsp;(101022.4/146764)<br>
          <br>
OVERALL STATS SUMMARY<br>
total packages: 90<br>
total executable files: 1286<br>
total classes: 1404<br>
total methods: 22556<br>
total executable lines: 146764<br>
          <br>
          <br>
          <br>
-- <br>
Thanks,<br>
Manjula. <br>
        </blockquote>
        </span></div>
Hi Manjula!<br>
        <br>
What testsuite did you use and which jvm-versions?<br>
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: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
 onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
 href="http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/10.4.1.3_RC/Emma.html"
 target="_blank">http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/10.4.1.3_RC/Emma.html</a><br>
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....).<br>
        <br>
Thanks,<br>
        <br>
Henri<br>
        <span><br>
        </span></blockquote>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    </span></div>
    </div>
  </blockquote>
  </div>
  <br>
  <br clear="all">
  <br>
-- <br>
Thanks,<br>
Manjula. </blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 

With regards,


Henri van de Scheur, Database Technology Group,
Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway
</pre>
</body>
</html>

--Boundary_(ID_Y2p40VKumDF0FDl73EYCbg)--