JCov and coverage numbers on OpenJDK

[Rory O'Donnell]

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.evans at gmail.com 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>
>

-- 
Rgds,Rory O'Donnell
Quality Engineering Manager
Oracle EMEA , Dublin, Ireland

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/quality-discuss/attachments/20150330/a838e1d4/attachment.html>