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: Alternative code coverage report using JaCoCo
Date Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:43:40 GMT

The coverage report does seem pretty simple and easy to understand.

Comparing the jacoco [1]
emma [2] <http://dbtg.foundry.sun.com/derby/test/coverage/_files/10c.html>reports
for DRDAServerStarter
I was wondering if the code coverage results in jacoco are not affected by
Java Security Manager since security manager has been shut off by default
for emma's
code coverage results.

[2]: http://dbtg.foundry.sun.com/derby/test/coverage/_files/10c.html

On 12 June 2012 14:34, Kristian Waagan <kristian.waagan@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 12.06.2012 02:36, Bryan Pendleton wrote:
>>> I've been looking into adding support for JaCoCo [1] for Derby
>> Thanks for investigating this, Kristian.
>> I looked at the report you published, and I found it clear and
>> easy to read.
>> Why would we choose one tool over another? Is there a reason to
>> trust the reports produced by one tool more than those produced
>> by another? Is it easier to configure or lower-overhead to operate
>> one tool versus the other?
> Hi Bryan,
> Note that we don't have to choose one of the tools - we can use both if we
> want to.
> When I started this effort we were having problems getting EMMA to produce
> results reliably. I think that issue has been resolved now (Knut made
> changes to part of our test framework).
> I'd say both tools are just about as easy to configure, but JaCoCo may
> a stronger focus on integration (currently ant, maven, Java agent).
> I don't know exactly about overhead, but my gut feeling is they're in the
> same league. I've tried other tools that affected performance a lot (i.e.
> took ages to run the tests) and that required a lot of resources (either
> during data recording or during report generation). Note that JaCoCo
> have a separate instrumentation/compilation step.
> Based on a quick chat with Knut Anders offline the raw result files from
> JaCoCo may be somewhat smaller, but the files are so small anyway that it
> doesn't matter.
> Report generation with JaCoCo is very fast.
> I believe both tools are pretty simplistic in what data they record or
> derive, but it's enough for our current usage.
>> Or are you just anticipating that Emma will fall into disrepair
>> over time?
> Yes, this is the main reason to look at another tool in my opinion.
> With time, EMMA may get into trouble as new versions of Java are released.
> There are also alternative ways to implement code coverage tools with Java
> 7, so in the future there may be a better tool available. However, the
> current level of overhead seems to be acceptable to me (when used with
> runs).
> --
> Kristian
>> thanks,
>> bryan

Siddharth Srivastava

View raw message