On 28/03/2015 15:03, Martijn Verburg wrote:
Hi all,
Oracle's internal QA team were able to confirm that the numbers that
the Adoption Group were producing are very close (not a statistical
significant difference) to their numbers. With validation that the
numbers are accurate, it would be good to start publishing these for
the purpose of guiding OpenJDK developers to areas that need more test
coverage!
What steps would people like to take next?
I think the right home for these reports is in the quality group.
They could host the code coverage reports and pro-actively release
test coverage numbers alongside the # tests passing/failing (as they
do currently).
@Rory, is that feasible in the short term? I understand that there's
potentially some technical work to do and other hoops to jump through.
If it's not possible in the short term then perhaps the quality group
could reference the reports that the Adoption Group are hosting (with
a caveat) in the short term until that work can be completed.
Hi Martijn,
I think it makes sense for the person generating the reports to host and
post a pointer to the
mailing list. I mentioned before comparing our internal numbers with
yours is like comparing
apples with pears.
Rgds,Rory
Special thanks to John Oliver and Alexandre Iline for digging into this!
Cheers,
Martijn
On 4 March 2015 at 13:25, Ben Evans <benjamin.john.ev...@gmail.com
<mailto:benjamin.john.ev...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Depending on timings, I can probably be free on Tuesday (I'm on
GMT too).
Thanks,
Ben
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Martijn Verburg
<martijnverb...@gmail.com <mailto:martijnverb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As some of you know we've been running some experiments in the
Cloudbees
> incubator to see if we can get accurate code coverage numbers
using JCov on
> the jdk9 forest in particular.
>
> John Oliver has gone back and reviewed the process and the
numbers and we
> *think* we've gone about it the right way.
>
> Before we even think about taking the next step to start
producing these
> numbers regularly in the incubator, we need to make sure that
we've used
> JCov correctly and that the numbers are not misleading.
>
> It would be great to have a technical call with John Oliver,
Mani, someone
> from Rory's team (the person who does the internal OpenJDK
numbers?) and
> probably Jonathan Gibbons.
>
> Does next Tuesday suit folks? It all depends on timezones (John
Oliver,
> Mani and myself are GMT)
>
> Cheers,
> Martijn
--
Rgds,Rory O'Donnell
Quality Engineering Manager
Oracle EMEA , Dublin, Ireland
