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: Code Coverage
Date Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:36:32 GMT

I went through the entire package org.apache.derby.iapi.jdbc.
The emma code coverage report, doesn't seem to have EngineStatement
and the related classes, AuthenticationService but as I see they are
already used in the unit tests. I am just wondering what may be the
reason behind it.

It seems that this package owes most of its code coverage results to
other packages.

For example:
DerbyServerStarter mostly owes its code coverage to
NetworkServerControl and NetworkServerControlImpl which are tested in
Also I noticed that the code involving security manager are not
covered by emma results (DERBY-5514) so the method and block coverage
results are not the true indicators for this case.

I have a doubt over coverage of BrokeredStatement. I wasn't able to
find exactly how BrokeredStatement has been tested though it seems
that the code coverage results come from XAConnection and

[1]  http://dbtg.foundry.sun.com/derby/test/coverage/_files/6.html
[2]: http://dbtg.foundry.sun.com/derby/test/coverage/_files/1f.html


On 18 May 2012 20:10, Bryan Pendleton <bpendleton.derby@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have chosen the following packages to work on during GSoC 2012:
>> 1) org.apache.derby.iapi.jdbc
>> 2) org.apache.derby.impl.io <http://org.apache.derby.impl.io>
> These seem like excellent choices. They are important packages, and
> we would like to be extremely thorough in our testing of these packages.
> I think it would be useful to look inside the packages in more detail.
> Within the packages named above, which particular classes are
> currently the least-covered by our existing tests? (Both in terms
> of percentage of coverage, and in terms of the amount of the un-covered
> code.)
> thanks,
> bryan

Siddharth Srivastava

View raw message