Aaron Akihisa Kagawa wrote:
Hey Guys,
It looks like we have a whole bunch of Performance failures. Did our
performance go
down in Version 7? Or is there something wrong with the LoadTest configuration
or
sensor?
thanks, aaron
The following alert(s) were triggered today:
* Project Daily Summaries
Hackystat-7 on 15-Dec-2005
Active Time: 0.33 (total), 0.08 (yours)
Build: 9 (total), 9 (successful)
Coverage: 72.2% (overall), 6128 (covered methods), 2362 (uncovered methods)
File Metrics: 1708 (classes), 8124 (methods), 119517 (LOC)
Unit Tests: 1264/0/0 (total p/f/e), 374/0/0 (yours)
Issues: 25/0/8/5/38 (o/i/r/c/t), 8/0/5/2/15 (yours)
Performance: 26 (total tests), 22 (failures)
--On Friday, December 16, 2005 10:19 AM -1000 "(Cedric) Qin ZHANG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
No, this is a relatively low priority task I am working on. There is change in
SDT
infrastructure from v6 to v7, which results in fake sensor data sent by
hackyLoadTest
rejected by the server. Cheers, -Cedric
Ok, it's been posted as:
<http://hackydev.ics.hawaii.edu:8080/browse/HACK-472>
Cheers,
Philip
