Hi 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 NetworkServerTestSetup[1] 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 EmbedStatement. [1] http://dbtg.foundry.sun.com/derby/test/coverage/_files/6.html [2]: http://dbtg.foundry.sun.com/derby/test/coverage/_files/1f.html Thanks On 18 May 2012 20:10, Bryan Pendleton <[email protected]> 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 > > -- Regards Siddharth Srivastava
