From martijnverburg at gmail.com Tue Mar 3 10:32:47 2015 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:32:47 +0000 Subject: JCov and coverage numbers on OpenJDK Message-ID: 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 From rory.odonnell at oracle.com Tue Mar 3 10:45:46 2015 From: rory.odonnell at oracle.com (Rory O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:45:46 +0000 Subject: JCov and coverage numbers on OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54F590DA.7040109@oracle.com> Hi Martijn, Can you send out a link to the lastest results ? Tuesday, will work for me, checking if Balchandra is available. Rgds,Rory On 03/03/2015 10:32, Martijn Verburg 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 From martijnverburg at gmail.com Tue Mar 3 11:13:42 2015 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 11:13:42 +0000 Subject: JCov and coverage numbers on OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <54F590DA.7040109@oracle.com> References: <54F590DA.7040109@oracle.com> Message-ID: https://adopt-openjdk.ci.cloudbees.com/view/OpenJDK/job/openjdk-1.9-linux-x86_64/ws/testoutput/jdk_core/JTreport/jcov/index.html Cheers, Martijn On 3 March 2015 at 10:45, Rory O'Donnell wrote: > Hi Martijn, > > Can you send out a link to the lastest results ? > > Tuesday, will work for me, checking if Balchandra is available. > > Rgds,Rory > > On 03/03/2015 10:32, Martijn Verburg 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 > > From sadhak001 at gmail.com Tue Mar 3 22:38:20 2015 From: sadhak001 at gmail.com (Mani Sarkar) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 22:38:20 +0000 Subject: JCov and coverage numbers on OpenJDK Message-ID: Hi Martijn, Rory, Tuesday works out for me as well, provided its post 1700 GMT. Cheers, Mani Message: 8 Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:45:46 +0000 From: "Rory O'Donnell" To: Martijn Verburg , "adoption-discuss at openjdk.java.net" , code-tools-dev at openjdk.java.net, "quality-discuss at openjdk.java.net" Cc: rory.odonnell at oracle.com Subject: Re: JCov and coverage numbers on OpenJDK Message-ID: <54F590DA.7040109 at oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Hi Martijn, Can you send out a link to the lastest results ? Tuesday, will work for me, checking if Balchandra is available. Rgds,Rory On 03/03/2015 10:32, Martijn Verburg 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 -- @theNeomatrix369 * | **Blog ** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs) *Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector * | **Bitbucket * * | **Github * * | **LinkedIn * *Come to Devoxx UK 2015:* http://www.devoxx.co.uk/ *Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come chasing after you!* From martijnverburg at gmail.com Sat Mar 28 15:03:17 2015 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 15:03:17 +0000 Subject: JCov and coverage numbers on OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 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 > 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 > From benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com Wed Mar 4 13:25:05 2015 From: benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com (Ben Evans) Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 13:25:05 -0000 Subject: JCov and coverage numbers on OpenJDK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 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