On 10.06.2012 05:36, siddharth srivastava wrote:
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.
Hi Siddharth,
Isn't EngineStatement an interface?
Not sure how the various code coverage tools cover interfaces, maybe
they only record coverage for the implementing classes?
(for interfaces they could of course only tell which methods have been
invoked or not, in addition to recording coverage for static blocks
and/or field initializations)
Regards,
--
Kristian
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
