> > Hi
I have been working over the suggestions given over the lists and finally was able to get suites.All work with emma. Bryan's Comment: If you were using numbers published on the web site, have you tried to > run the tests with code coverage instrumentation yourself? I am interested > to know how closely the coverage numbers that you observe in your test runs > match the onces published at the Derby web site. The figures in the proposal were from the one published on the site. I have executed the suites.All with emma and now have a coverage report up at [1]. These are the results from sane build. The generation of coverage report with insane build is currently going on on my PC. I have updated my proposal to reflect the same. The results with the sane build seem better than the one on the site[2]. Is it due to the fact that insane build has debug information and other exception related code as well which makes the code coverage results for it numerically weaker than the sane build ? Tiago wrote: Your proposal looks good to me, however I would like to see a bit more of > background. Why are unit tests important? I offered to mentor this proposal > but it would be nice to see that you grasp the importance of having such > unit tests. When are they important? Why do we bother writing them? Are we > wasting our time or will these tests actually be beneficial for Derby in > the future? Try to answer these questions and sell me the idea of why we > need to raise our test coverage :-) Thanks Tiago for your suggestion. I have updated the proposal on melange to reflect my views over unit testing and code coverage and there subsequent advantage for it. Hopefully I am a good salesperson :) (I'll be improving as I go) Kathey Wrote: I think also allocating some time in the proposal for perhaps updating and > expanding our limited documentation on the running and analyzing code > coverage. > http://wiki.apache.org/db-**derby/CodeCoverageWithEMMA<http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/CodeCoverageWithEMMA> Since I have already setup Emma and ran the tests. I think I would be able to dedicate time for improvising the documentation as well. Till now, I have been following DerbyCodeCoverageUsingEmma [3]. But after some strange errors, with addition of flags to argument list and a few exceptions failing I switched to the ant build. Though it was easier to do it with the ant build, but I understood things better with initial documentation. So, probably I'll focus on explaining the working and especially add various parameters that can be associated in the arguments for running emma with ant. I have also updated the proposal to contain all the above. Also, I would like to hear your thoughts on how, given a specific method > for which you plan to improve coverage, how would you go about identifying > a functional test case which will cover the method. This will of course be > the tricky bit of all of this. I'll be following this mail with another one to explain what my understanding is in this regard. Thanks Regards Siddharth Srivastava [1]:http://liveaired.com/derby/emma/junit_sane/ [2] http://dbtg.foundry.sun.com/derby/test/coverage/ [3] http://db.apache.org/derby/binaries/DerbyCodeCoverageUsingEmma.pdf
