db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tiago Espinha <ti...@espinha.net>
Subject Re: GSoC 2012 Proposal
Date Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:25:24 GMT
Hi Siddharth,

Your proposal looks good to me, however I would like to see a bit more of
background. Why are unit tests important? I offered to mentor this proposal
but it would be nice to see that you grasp the importance of having such
unit tests. When are they important? Why do we bother writing them? Are we
wasting our time or will these tests actually be beneficial for Derby in
the future? Try to answer these questions and sell me the idea of why we
need to raise our test coverage :-)

In your proposal you also say "Main focus would be to maximise the code
coverage". The researcher in me tends to disagree :-) I'd be MUCH happier
with an overall code coverage of 80% on Derby, than having a few random
classes with 100% and another bunch with, say, 40%. It's been (more or
less) proven that anything above 80% is overkill but if we achieve 80%
along all of Derby's codebase (n.b. not an average number, but at least 80%
on all of Derby's codebase), we can in principle have a very good code

Also from talking with you on IRC, I see that the results you presented are
based on Derby's automated reports. If you could get your Emma run setup
before April 16 (the deadline for the student ranking) and you mention this
in your application, it would make your proposal much stronger.

Eventually, if both you and Nufail get their proposals accepted we also
need to make sure your work does not overlap. I'm sure there is enough
tests to be written by two students, but this is something we can think
about at a later stage. For now stick with the classes/packages that look
more interesting to you.


On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Bryan Pendleton <bpendleton.derby@gmail.com
> wrote:

> On 04/06/2012 09:43 AM, siddharth srivastava wrote:
>> Hi
>> Following is my proposal for GSoC 2012 for improving code coverage in
>> Derby.
>> https://docs.google.com/**document/d/1_-**ANrTY0wyU9o6bhu5aAQTGZPL1w3llM*
>> *WH1TdMPkPeU/edit<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_-ANrTY0wyU9o6bhu5aAQTGZPL1w3llMWH1TdMPkPeU/edit>
> Hello Siddharth,
> I have been reading your proposal and I think it is quite good. I am
> pleased to
> see that you have been continuing to work with Derby and are interested in
> learning more about it.
> I think that those code packages are good ones to focus on.
> I suspect that it will be quite interesting and challenging to improve
> the code coverage in some of these areas, since we will have to uncover
> new ways to exercise Derby and cause it to take code paths that are not
> currently well-explored.
> It could be that it is hard to achieve 100% coverage, but even a moderate
> improvement over our current code coverage levels will enhance the quality
> of the system and, I am sure, uncover interesting new bugs to be logged
> and fixed.
> Did you get the code coverage numbers in your proposal by running the test
> suites yourself? Or were you reading the code coverage numbers published
> by one of the automated test runs on the Derby web site?
> If you were using numbers published on the web site, have you tried to
> run the tests with code coverage instrumentation yourself? I am interested
> to know how closely the coverage numbers that you observe in your test runs
> match the onces published at the Derby web site.
> I hope your proposal is accepted by Google, and I hope that other members
> of
> the community will also offer their suggestions about additional
> improvements
> you could make to your proposal.
> thanks,
> bryan

View raw message