Hmm, if there's code covered by insane builds which is not covered by sane builds, is that really a problem? We would just have to make sure that regressions are ran against insane jars and all would be well. Or am I missing something?
I believe the automated tests are run against "insane" builds. I thinkKatherine Marsden wrote:
On 4/12/2012 11:16 AM, Mohamed Nufail wrote:
Hi Tiago,Great work. On thing I recall is that the person who used to run this could run with multiple JVM's and get cumulative results. For example running both JDK 1.5 and JDK 1.6 would better cover both ClientDataSource and ClientDataSource40. If any of your targeted classes code path's appear to be java version dependent, it might be worthwhile to add JDK 1.5, JDK 1.6 and JDK 1.7 in your baseline to see if they are already covered with other java versions.
I didn't run Emma coverage reports myself by the time I wrote the proposal. But I managed to do it today. It took a long time to run all the tests, but it completed without errors and produced a coverage report. The numbers were almost the same as that of the automated runs. I will update the proposal to include this.
for identified missed codepaths getting a run against "sane" builds would be more valuable as I found that I kept tracking down uncovered
links and they would lead to sanity code that is likely covered when
running the tests in sane mode. That with kathey's suggestion of
adding runs against multiple jvms should good. Next step would be
to post it somewhere public so people can help identify what to look
at and see progress.