harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Leo Li" <liyilei1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [build test] Integrate Emma into BTI 2.0 to get code coverage report
Date Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:25:02 GMT
On 9/11/07, Sean Qiu <sean.xx.qiu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or we can add a new adapor for the emma task, called "emma" as a example.
> The benifit is we needn't modify the main script.
>
> 1. emma/parameter.xml
>    make it depends "classlib" and "drlvm", get the latest built jre for
> instrument.
>    tell the instrumented jre location as a shared parameter
> 2. emma/adaptor.xml
>    instrument the jre
> 3. setup wanted test to get coverage report.
>    set wanted test suites' depends parameter to "emma", and take the
> instrumented jre as the test jre.
> 4. run the test to get coverage report
>
> But i think there is a little violation against the bti adaptor's
> abstraction, so i prefer the previous one.
>
> Any suggestion or commets?

   Besides, I have put a kernel classes list on harmony wiki.[1] You
may try it, Sean.:)
   It is generated by a simulation of emma's gathering coverage data.
If any future modification in harmony's code  influences the emma
depending classes, a solution to generate kernel classes list is also
included in the wiki page[2].

Good luck!

[1]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony-data/attachments/coverageEMMA/attachments/kernel.classes.list

[2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/coverageEMMA
>
> 2007/9/10, Sean Qiu <sean.xx.qiu@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hi, guys
> >
> > Shall we integrate the emma into our BTI 2.0 to get the test coverage
> > report?
> > AFAIK, Robert has spent a number of time on using our unit test to emma
> > coverage report.
> > Maybe we can generate the coverage from the BTI test besides our unit
> > test.
> >
> > IMHO, we can maintain a individual target as the "run-cc" target in
> > script/main.xml, like "run-coverage" or something else.
> > It will set up its requisite like an instrumented jre to run the test.
> > Before running the test, we need to add <jvmarg
> > value="-Xbootclasspath/p:${instrumented-classlib}"> for each adaptor's
> > tested jvm task.
> >
> > Finally, the "run-coverage" command call each adaptor as normal except
> > assigning the ${instrumented-classlib} to the instrumented classlib jars.
> > The generated report can be placed to build/coverage-report or some more
> > proper places.
> >
> > I think this approach can extend the BTI 2.0 without
> > too many modifications.
> > Are there any comments about this?  Or any other approach? Any
> > suggestion is welcomed.
> >
> > --
> > Sean Qiu
> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sean Qiu
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>


-- 
Leo Li
China Software Development Lab, IBM

Mime
View raw message