db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From siddharth srivastava <akssps...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: GSoC 2012 Proposal
Date Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:50:15 GMT
> Hi

I have been working over the suggestions given over the lists and finally
was able to
get suites.All work with emma.

Bryan's Comment:

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.

The figures in the proposal were from the one published on the site.
I have executed the suites.All with emma and now have a coverage report up
at [1].
These are the results from sane build. The generation of coverage report
with insane
build is currently going on on my PC.
I have updated my proposal to reflect the same.

The results with the sane build seem better than the one on the site[2]. Is
it due to the
fact that insane build has debug information and other exception related
code as well
which makes the code coverage results for it numerically weaker than the
sane build ?

Tiago wrote:

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 :-)

Thanks Tiago for your suggestion. I have updated the proposal on melange to
reflect my views
over unit testing and code coverage and there subsequent advantage for it.
Hopefully I am a good
salesperson :) (I'll be improving as I go)

Kathey Wrote:

I think also allocating some time in the proposal for perhaps updating and
> expanding our limited  documentation on  the running and analyzing  code
> coverage.
> http://wiki.apache.org/db-**derby/CodeCoverageWithEMMA<http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/CodeCoverageWithEMMA>

Since I have already setup Emma and ran the tests. I think I would be able
to dedicate time for improvising the documentation as well. Till now, I
have been following DerbyCodeCoverageUsingEmma [3]. But after some strange
errors, with addition of flags to argument list and a few exceptions
failing I switched to the ant build. Though it was easier to do it with the
ant build, but I understood things better with initial documentation.
So, probably I'll focus on explaining the working and especially add
various parameters that can be associated in the arguments
for running emma with ant.

I have also updated the proposal to contain all the above.

Also, I would like to hear your thoughts on how, given a specific method
> for which you plan to improve coverage, how would you go about identifying
> a functional test case which will cover the method.  This will of course be
> the tricky bit of all of this.

I'll be following this mail with another one to explain what my
understanding is in this regard.


Siddharth Srivastava

[2] http://dbtg.foundry.sun.com/derby/test/coverage/
[3]  http://db.apache.org/derby/binaries/DerbyCodeCoverageUsingEmma.pdf

View raw message