Forgot to mention that we have to be careful when reading Clover report data.
If you click on org.xwiki.job package you”ll see it gives: * 88.2% for http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190101/clover-commons+rendering+platform-20190101-2330/org/xwiki/job/pkg-summary.html * 88.7% for http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190108/clover-commons+rendering+platform-20190108-0150/org/xwiki/job/pkg-summary.html So you may be tempted to think that we increased the coverage. However it’s not the case. It says 15 files for org.xwiki.job but there are 28 in reality. I don’t really know how Clover does its computation but it’s not correct. FTR I spent 2 hours recomputing everything for xwiki-commons-job, by debugging my report code, to prove that it’s actually correct. Thanks -Vincent > On 10 Feb 2019, at 13:55, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: > > Hi Thomas and all, > > I’ve just done the analysis of the xwiki-commons-job TPC loss displayed on > http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190108/XWikiReport-20190101-2330-20190108-0150.html > (and it’s still the case today on > http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190202/XWikiReport-20190101-2330-20190202-0222.html). > > xwiki-commons-job 84.3812 84.2416 -0.1395 -0.0002 > > There were only 2 classes that have had changes in TPC: > * DefaultJobProgress - lowered TPC > * AbstractRequest - increased TPC > > But there’s more lowering than increasing globally which is why it’s in red. > > Specifically the lowering happened in 2 places: > * > http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190108/clover-commons+rendering+platform-20190108-0150/org/xwiki/job/internal/DefaultJobProgress.html?line=133#src-133 > vs > http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190101/clover-commons+rendering+platform-20190101-2330/org/xwiki/job/internal/DefaultJobProgress.html?line=133#src-133 > * > http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190108/clover-commons+rendering+platform-20190108-0150/org/xwiki/job/internal/DefaultJobProgress.html?line=219#src-219 > vs > http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190101/clover-commons+rendering+platform-20190101-2330/org/xwiki/job/internal/DefaultJobProgress.html?line=219#src-219 > > Note that no source code changed in the job module. > > Conclusions: > * It was hard to track and I need to improve the report to show a package > level difference too and not just modules, at least for modules going down. > Actually, even better would be a class level difference too for modules going > down. > * In this case, I believe we had some bugs in XWiki somewhere that led to > hitting the "Could not find any matching step for source [{}]. Ignoring > EndStepProgress.” error. Could someone confirm that, it rings a bell to me? > * It also shows there’s no module level tests (ie unit tests) that go on in > this IF and it would be good to add one to prove that we get a log when we > have an end without a start. > > It’s interesting because this is a use case where our global TPC went down > because we fixed a bug (and thus indirectly we enter into less code). It > mostly highlights that we don’t tests this case and we should. > > Thanks > -Vincent >
