This may lay out better:
http://pastebin.com/m77cc8264

Gabriel Roldan wrote:
> There's also the count lines of code utility (cloc: 
> http://cloc.sourceforge.net)
> 
> This is the output for test and non test code:
> 
> non test:
> $ cloc --exclude-dir=community,test .
>      3889 text files.
>      2591 unique files.
>     39287 files ignored.
> 
> http://cloc.sourceforge.net v 1.08  T=50.0 s (42.1 files/s, 6458.2 lines/s)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Language          files     blank   comment      code    scale   3rd 
> gen. equiv
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Java               1140     29912     71239    108562 x   1.36 = 
> 147644.32
> XSD                 297       784      6694     47207 x   1.90 = 
> 89693.30
> XML                 366      1352      2282     26054 x   1.90 = 
> 49502.60
> Javascript           87       902      1856      9353 x   1.48 = 
> 13842.44
> JSP                  71       628      1277      4371 x   1.48 = 
> 6469.08
> HTML                123       671       174      4264 x   1.90 = 
> 8101.60
> CSS                  13       336       193      2693 x   1.00 = 
> 2693.00
> DTD                   4       283       732       308 x   1.90 = 
>   585.20
> PHP                   1        51        67       290 x   3.50 = 
> 1015.00
> DOS Batch             2        72        17       160 x   0.63 = 
>   100.80
> Bourne Shell          2        14        21        89 x   3.81 = 
>   339.09
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> SUM:               2106     35005     84552    203351 x   1.57 = 
> 319986.43
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> test:
> $ cloc --exclude-dir=community,main .
>      2361 text files.
>      1698 unique files.
>     41930 files ignored.
> 
> http://cloc.sourceforge.net v 1.08  T=33.0 s (37.2 files/s, 4267.4 lines/s)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Language          files     blank   comment      code    scale   3rd 
> gen. equiv
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> XSD                 298       784      6698     48181 x   1.90 = 
> 91543.90
> XML                 366      1272      2212     25991 x   1.90 = 
> 49382.90
> Java                248      4555      3470     18915 x   1.36 = 
> 25724.40
> Javascript          105       906      1910      9470 x   1.48 = 
> 14015.60
> JSP                  71       628      1277      4371 x   1.48 = 
> 6469.08
> HTML                114       602       178      4036 x   1.90 = 
> 7668.40
> CSS                  14       336       193      2696 x   1.00 = 
> 2696.00
> DTD                   4       283       732       308 x   1.90 = 
>   585.20
> PHP                   1        51        67       290 x   3.50 = 
> 1015.00
> DOS Batch             2        72        17       160 x   0.63 = 
>   100.80
> Bourne Shell          2        14        21        89 x   3.81 = 
>   339.09
> SQL                   1         5         4        31 x   2.29 = 
>    70.99
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> SUM:               1226      9508     16779    114538 x   1.74 = 
> 199611.36
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Andrea Aime wrote:
>> Andrea Aime ha scritto:
>>> Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
>>>>> One thing that I was not sure about was the usage of the svn log to
>>>>> report numbers of test classes and the like. On one side, it's a way
>>>>> to give a concrete information about the testing, on the other side
>>>>> it might be perceived as trying to look (too) good. Opinions?
>>>>>
>>>> I think that information would be in general good to have, I would be 
>>>> curious as to what the ratio of code to test code is. I guess whether we 
>>>> are trying to "show off" or not would depend on the numbers... for 
>>>> instance they may be embarrassing :)
>>> Rough but quick computation (on trunk, giving up on removing white 
>>> space, comments and the like):
>>> cat `find . -name *.java` | wc -l --> 331976
>>> cat `find . -name *.java` | wc -l --> 33885
>>> non test code: 297991
>>> % of test over non test: 11.3%
>>>
>>> Note this is a unfair towards test code, as non test code has
>>> javadocs, surely more code comments, and copyright headers.
>>> But it's a ballpark idea, I think it's fair to assume the actual
>>> ratio is more towards 15%-20%
>> Hmmm... making a better estimate is possible by removing whitespace
>> and comment lines. Here is an attempt trying to shave off white lines,
>> block comments and lines with just a comment (assuming for simplicity
>> that those starting with "*" are most of the time javadoc comments and 
>> lines ending with */ are also the end of a multiline block comment):
>>
>> cat `find . -name *.java` | grep -v "^[ \t]*$" | grep -v "^[ \t]*//" | 
>> grep -v "^[ \t]*/\*" | grep -v "^[ \t]*\*" | grep -v ".*\*/" | wc -l
>> 183556
>>
>> cat `find . -name *Test.java` | grep -v "^[ \t]*$" | grep -v "^[ \t]*//" 
>> | grep -v "^[ \t]*/\*" | grep -v "^[ \t]*\*" | grep -v ".*\*/" | wc -l
>> 24938
>>
>> non test code: 158618
>> % of test over non test: 13.58%
>>
>> Hmmm... I expected it to be higher, but it's not so bad. Most of our
>> tests are functional so they tend to exercise a lot of the GeoServer
>> code (startup, configuration, catalog access, data access, service code
>> and so on).
>>
>> Cheers
>> Andrea
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Gabriel Roldan
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Reply via email to