JCov and coverage numbers on OpenJDK

[Ben Evans]

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
<martijnverburg at 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.evans at 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
>> <martijnverburg at 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
>>