JCov and coverage numbers on OpenJDK
benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com
Wed Apr 8 21:05:16 UTC 2015
I have the URL:
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.
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!
> 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).
>> 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
>> > 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,
>> > 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
More information about the adoption-discuss