Hi all, I have the URL: https://adopt-openjdk.ci.cloudbees.com/job/openjdk-1.9-linux-x86_64/ws/build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/testoutput/jdk_core/JTreport/jcov/index.html for the coverage numbers.
However, they don't seem to be linked to from anywhere. Is that right? Can we add a link from the Cloudbees Jenkins server? I'm writing an InfoQ article about this, btw. Thanks, Ben On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Martijn Verburg <martijnverb...@gmail.com> 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. > > 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> 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> 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 >>
