You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Manjula Kutty <ma...@gmail.com> on 2008/05/05 21:37:06 UTC
Code Coverage Results for 10.4.1.3
OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY
--------------------------------------------------
all classes: 87% (1226/1404)
Method : 74% (16629/22556)
Block : 69% (486715/704201)
Line : 69% (101022.4/146764)
OVERALL STATS SUMMARY
total packages: 90
total executable files: 1286
total classes: 1404
total methods: 22556
total executable lines: 146764
--
Thanks,
Manjula.
Re: Code Coverage Results for 10.4.1.3
Posted by Manjula Kutty <ma...@gmail.com>.
I did instrument all the jars (including the locale jars) except
derbyTesting.jar. Did you use EMMA with ant?
Manjula
On 5/8/08, Henri van de Scheur <He...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> Hi again!
>
> I do not understand these differences. I have instrumented the same jars,
> but not all. I did not include derbyTesting.jar and the derbyLocale*.jars.
> So I instrumented the 5 following jars: derby.jar, derbyclient.jar,
> derbynet.jar, derbyrun.jar and derbytools.jar.
> I hope to find an explanation when I can compare your reports with mine.
>
> Henri
> Manjula Kutty wrote:
>
> I took the 10.4.1.3 Release candidate jars.
> I used the sun jdks. Also is there a chance that I was giving all
> permission to all the codebases in the derby_tests policy file?
>
> -Manjula
>
>
> On 5/7/08, Henri van de Scheur <He...@sun.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Manjula!
> >
> > I was able to fix the problem with linking the source-code, so now the
> > site I mentioned before shows correct and complete results.
> > To summarize and compare with your results:
> > OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > all classes: 90% (1264/1397)
> > Method : 75% (16948/22513)
> > Block : 73% (479495/660441)
> > Line : 71% (100760/141054)
> >
> > OVERALL STATS SUMMARY
> > total packages: 89
> > total executable files: 1280
> > total classes: 1397
> > total methods: 22513
> > total executable lines: 141054
> >
> > So we see a couple of (general) differences:
> >
> > 1. In general you report higher numbers for the totals
> > 2. In general I find higher numbers for coverage
> >
> > Can this be explained by just the differences in our jvm's (as different
> > vendors) or should we investigate more?
> > For my numbers I did a little workaround regarding the source-code: I
> > used the source-code from the 10.4-branch and not the official 10.4.1.3
> >
> > Thanks !
> >
> > Henri
> >
> > Manjula Kutty wrote:
> >
> > Hi Henri
> >
> > I ran suites.all. I used my derby_tests policy (Actually the one which
> > gives all permission). I ran it with jdk142, 15 and 16. I will be linking
> > the full report to the wiki.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Manjula
> >
> >
> > On 5/6/08, Henri van de Scheur <He...@sun.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Manjula Kutty wrote:
> > >
> > > > OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY
> > > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > > all classes: 87% (1226/1404) Method : 74% (16629/22556)
> > > > Block : 69% (486715/704201)
> > > > Line : 69% (101022.4/146764)
> > > >
> > > > OVERALL STATS SUMMARY
> > > > total packages: 90
> > > > total executable files: 1286
> > > > total classes: 1404
> > > > total methods: 22556
> > > > total executable lines: 146764
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Manjula.
> > > >
> > > Hi Manjula!
> > >
> > > What testsuite did you use and which jvm-versions?
> > > I used Emma to run with suitesAll on jvm1.4, jvm1.5 and jvm1.6 (both
> > > 32- and 64-mode). Results can be found here:
> > > http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/10.4.1.3_RC/Emma.html
> > > Unfortunately I have had some problems linking the source-code to
> > > these reports, but I plan to do that within the next 24 hours (if svn allows
> > > me....).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Henri
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Manjula.
>
>
>
> --
>
> With regards,
>
>
>
> Henri van de Scheur, Database Technology Group,
> Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway
>
>
--
Thanks,
Manjula.
Re: Code Coverage Results for 10.4.1.3
Posted by Henri van de Scheur <He...@Sun.COM>.
Hi again!
I do not understand these differences. I have instrumented the same
jars, but not all. I did not include derbyTesting.jar and the
derbyLocale*.jars. So I instrumented the 5 following jars: derby.jar,
derbyclient.jar, derbynet.jar, derbyrun.jar and derbytools.jar.
I hope to find an explanation when I can compare your reports with mine.
Henri
Manjula Kutty wrote:
> I took the 10.4.1.3 <http://10.4.1.3> Release candidate jars.
> I used the sun jdks. Also is there a chance that I was giving all
> permission to all the codebases in the derby_tests policy file?
>
> -Manjula
>
>
> On 5/7/08, *Henri van de Scheur* <Henri.Vandescheur@sun.com
> <ma...@sun.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Manjula!
>
> I was able to fix the problem with linking the source-code, so now
> the site I mentioned before shows correct and complete results.
> To summarize and compare with your results:
> OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY
> --------------------------------------------------
> all classes: 90% (1264/1397)
> Method : 75% (16948/22513)
> Block : 73% (479495/660441)
> Line : 71% (100760/141054)
>
> OVERALL STATS SUMMARY
> total packages: 89
> total executable files: 1280
> total classes: 1397
> total methods: 22513
> total executable lines: 141054
>
> So we see a couple of (general) differences:
>
> 1. In general you report higher numbers for the totals
> 2. In general I find higher numbers for coverage
>
> Can this be explained by just the differences in our jvm's (as
> different vendors) or should we investigate more?
> For my numbers I did a little workaround regarding the
> source-code: I used the source-code from the 10.4-branch and not
> the official 10.4.1.3 <http://10.4.1.3/>
>
> Thanks !
>
> Henri
>
>
> Manjula Kutty wrote:
>> Hi Henri
>>
>> I ran suites.all. I used my derby_tests policy (Actually the one
>> which gives all permission). I ran it with jdk142, 15 and 16. I
>> will be linking the full report to the wiki.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Manjula
>>
>>
>> On 5/6/08, *Henri van de Scheur* <Henri.Vandescheur@sun.com
>> <ma...@sun.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Manjula Kutty wrote:
>>
>> OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> all classes: 87% (1226/1404) Method : 74% (16629/22556)
>> Block : 69% (486715/704201)
>> Line : 69% (101022.4/146764)
>>
>> OVERALL STATS SUMMARY
>> total packages: 90
>> total executable files: 1286
>> total classes: 1404
>> total methods: 22556
>> total executable lines: 146764
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Manjula.
>>
>> Hi Manjula!
>>
>> What testsuite did you use and which jvm-versions?
>> I used Emma to run with suitesAll on jvm1.4, jvm1.5 and
>> jvm1.6 (both 32- and 64-mode). Results can be found here:
>> http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/10.4.1.3_RC/Emma.html
>> Unfortunately I have had some problems linking the
>> source-code to these reports, but I plan to do that within
>> the next 24 hours (if svn allows me....).
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Henri
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Manjula.
--
With regards,
Henri van de Scheur, Database Technology Group,
Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway
Re: Code Coverage Results for 10.4.1.3
Posted by Manjula Kutty <ma...@gmail.com>.
I took the 10.4.1.3 Release candidate jars.
I used the sun jdks. Also is there a chance that I was giving all permission
to all the codebases in the derby_tests policy file?
-Manjula
On 5/7/08, Henri van de Scheur <He...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Manjula!
>
> I was able to fix the problem with linking the source-code, so now the
> site I mentioned before shows correct and complete results.
> To summarize and compare with your results:
> OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY
> --------------------------------------------------
> all classes: 90% (1264/1397)
> Method : 75% (16948/22513)
> Block : 73% (479495/660441)
> Line : 71% (100760/141054)
>
> OVERALL STATS SUMMARY
> total packages: 89
> total executable files: 1280
> total classes: 1397
> total methods: 22513
> total executable lines: 141054
>
> So we see a couple of (general) differences:
>
> 1. In general you report higher numbers for the totals
> 2. In general I find higher numbers for coverage
>
> Can this be explained by just the differences in our jvm's (as different
> vendors) or should we investigate more?
> For my numbers I did a little workaround regarding the source-code: I used
> the source-code from the 10.4-branch and not the official 10.4.1.3
>
> Thanks !
>
> Henri
>
> Manjula Kutty wrote:
>
> Hi Henri
>
> I ran suites.all. I used my derby_tests policy (Actually the one which
> gives all permission). I ran it with jdk142, 15 and 16. I will be linking
> the full report to the wiki.
>
> Thanks
> Manjula
>
>
> On 5/6/08, Henri van de Scheur <He...@sun.com> wrote:
> >
> > Manjula Kutty wrote:
> >
> > > OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > all classes: 87% (1226/1404) Method : 74% (16629/22556)
> > > Block : 69% (486715/704201)
> > > Line : 69% (101022.4/146764)
> > >
> > > OVERALL STATS SUMMARY
> > > total packages: 90
> > > total executable files: 1286
> > > total classes: 1404
> > > total methods: 22556
> > > total executable lines: 146764
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Manjula.
> > >
> > Hi Manjula!
> >
> > What testsuite did you use and which jvm-versions?
> > I used Emma to run with suitesAll on jvm1.4, jvm1.5 and jvm1.6 (both 32-
> > and 64-mode). Results can be found here:
> > http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/10.4.1.3_RC/Emma.html
> > Unfortunately I have had some problems linking the source-code to these
> > reports, but I plan to do that within the next 24 hours (if svn allows
> > me....).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Henri
> >
> >
>
--
Thanks,
Manjula.
Re: Code Coverage Results for 10.4.1.3
Posted by Henri van de Scheur <He...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Manjula!
I was able to fix the problem with linking the source-code, so now the
site I mentioned before shows correct and complete results.
To summarize and compare with your results:
OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY
--------------------------------------------------
all classes: 90% (1264/1397)
Method : 75% (16948/22513)
Block : 73% (479495/660441)
Line : 71% (100760/141054)
OVERALL STATS SUMMARY
total packages: 89
total executable files: 1280
total classes: 1397
total methods: 22513
total executable lines: 141054
So we see a couple of (general) differences:
1. In general you report higher numbers for the totals
2. In general I find higher numbers for coverage
Can this be explained by just the differences in our jvm's (as different
vendors) or should we investigate more?
For my numbers I did a little workaround regarding the source-code: I
used the source-code from the 10.4-branch and not the official 10.4.1.3
Thanks !
Henri
Manjula Kutty wrote:
> Hi Henri
>
> I ran suites.all. I used my derby_tests policy (Actually the one which
> gives all permission). I ran it with jdk142, 15 and 16. I will be
> linking the full report to the wiki.
>
> Thanks
> Manjula
>
>
> On 5/6/08, *Henri van de Scheur* <Henri.Vandescheur@sun.com
> <ma...@sun.com>> wrote:
>
> Manjula Kutty wrote:
>
> OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY
> --------------------------------------------------
> all classes: 87% (1226/1404) Method : 74% (16629/22556)
> Block : 69% (486715/704201)
> Line : 69% (101022.4/146764)
>
> OVERALL STATS SUMMARY
> total packages: 90
> total executable files: 1286
> total classes: 1404
> total methods: 22556
> total executable lines: 146764
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Manjula.
>
> Hi Manjula!
>
> What testsuite did you use and which jvm-versions?
> I used Emma to run with suitesAll on jvm1.4, jvm1.5 and jvm1.6
> (both 32- and 64-mode). Results can be found here:
> http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/10.4.1.3_RC/Emma.html
> Unfortunately I have had some problems linking the source-code to
> these reports, but I plan to do that within the next 24 hours (if
> svn allows me....).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Henri
>
Re: Code Coverage Results for 10.4.1.3
Posted by Manjula Kutty <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi Henri
I ran suites.all. I used my derby_tests policy (Actually the one which gives
all permission). I ran it with jdk142, 15 and 16. I will be linking the full
report to the wiki.
Thanks
Manjula
On 5/6/08, Henri van de Scheur <He...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> Manjula Kutty wrote:
>
> > OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > all classes: 87% (1226/1404) Method : 74% (16629/22556)
> > Block : 69% (486715/704201)
> > Line : 69% (101022.4/146764)
> >
> > OVERALL STATS SUMMARY
> > total packages: 90
> > total executable files: 1286
> > total classes: 1404
> > total methods: 22556
> > total executable lines: 146764
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Manjula.
> >
> Hi Manjula!
>
> What testsuite did you use and which jvm-versions?
> I used Emma to run with suitesAll on jvm1.4, jvm1.5 and jvm1.6 (both 32-
> and 64-mode). Results can be found here:
> http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/10.4.1.3_RC/Emma.html
> Unfortunately I have had some problems linking the source-code to these
> reports, but I plan to do that within the next 24 hours (if svn allows
> me....).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Henri
>
> --
>
> With regards,
>
>
>
> Henri van de Scheur, Database Technology Group,
> Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway
>
>
--
Thanks,
Manjula.
Re: Code Coverage Results for 10.4.1.3
Posted by Henri van de Scheur <He...@Sun.COM>.
Manjula Kutty wrote:
> OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY
> --------------------------------------------------
> all classes: 87% (1226/1404)
> Method : 74% (16629/22556)
> Block : 69% (486715/704201)
> Line : 69% (101022.4/146764)
>
> OVERALL STATS SUMMARY
> total packages: 90
> total executable files: 1286
> total classes: 1404
> total methods: 22556
> total executable lines: 146764
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Manjula.
Hi Manjula!
What testsuite did you use and which jvm-versions?
I used Emma to run with suitesAll on jvm1.4, jvm1.5 and jvm1.6 (both 32-
and 64-mode). Results can be found here:
http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/10.4.1.3_RC/Emma.html
Unfortunately I have had some problems linking the source-code to these
reports, but I plan to do that within the next 24 hours (if svn allows
me....).
Thanks,
Henri
--
With regards,
Henri van de Scheur, Database Technology Group,
Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway