Katherine Marsden wrote:
On 4/12/2012 11:16 AM, Mohamed Nufail wrote:
Hi Tiago,
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.
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 believe the automated tests are run against "insane" builds. I think
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.
