db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Knut Anders Hatlen (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (DERBY-5851) Inconsistent code coverage shown for LogicalPreparedStatement40
Date Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:59:36 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-5851?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13411305#comment-13411305
] 

Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-5851:
-------------------------------------------

If Bryan's experiment was run with the CLASSPATH environment variable set, the results might
be explained by the following comment in the junit-init target:

---
         The preferences:
           1) User-specified derby.junit.classpath
           2) Jars (insane preferred over sane)
           3) classes-directory

         Note also that the user's CLASSPATH environment variable is appended
         to the JUnit classpath, but in most cases Derby classes here will be
         shadowed by one of the above entries. It is recommended to not have
         any Derby classes in the CLASSPATH environment variable.
---

As long as the instrumented derbyrun.jar appears before the other jars, I don't think it should
cause any problems, though.
                
> Inconsistent code coverage shown for LogicalPreparedStatement40
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-5851
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-5851
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Mohamed Nufail
>            Assignee: Mohamed Nufail
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: derby-5851-CPdecorator.patch
>
>
> I tried running org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.tests.jdbc4.PreparedStatementTest
with a connectionCPDecorator in a JDBC4 environment. So this should actually run the test
with LogicalPreparedStatement40 statements. 
> But in code coverage report methods such as setNClob show no coverage in LogicalPreparedStatement40
class. But in PreparedStatement40 class all these methods are shown as covered. Actually those
method calls should go to PreparedStatement40 through LogicalPreparedStatement40. But it is
not shown in emma code coverage report.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Mime
View raw message