JCov and coverage numbers on OpenJDK
sadhak001 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 8 22:26:07 UTC 2015
The JCov coverage report for both OpenJDK8 and OpenJDK9 are linked from two
places at the least:
Recent article in Voxxed:
(look for first hyperlink)
Our community driven gitbook i.e. Adopt OpenJDK Getting Started Kit
(first two hyperlinks on the page)
On the CloudBees Jenkin server we don't have a direct link but can download
the reports as zipped files, see
Hope this helps for your InfoQ article, if you need to know anything John
Oliver, and Martijn are also great sources to inquire with, with regards to
JCov and the work that has been done in this respect.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Ben Evans <benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com>
> Hi all,
> 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
> > 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
> > 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>
> >> Depending on timings, I can probably be free on Tuesday (I'm on GMT
> >> 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
> >> > incubator to see if we can get accurate code coverage numbers using
> >> 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
> >> > numbers regularly in the incubator, we need to make sure that we've
> >> > 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?)
> >> > probably Jonathan Gibbons.
> >> >
> >> > Does next Tuesday suit folks? It all depends on timezones (John
> >> > Mani and myself are GMT)
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Martijn
@theNeomatrix369 <http://twitter.com/theNeomatrix369>* | **Blog
<http://neomatrix369.wordpress.com>** | *LJC Associate & LJC Advocate
(@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs)
*Meet-a-Project - *MutabilityDetector
<https://github.com/MutabilityDetector>* | **Bitbucket
<https://bitbucket.org/neomatrix369>* * | **Github
<https://github.com/neomatrix369>* * | **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!*
More information about the adoption-discuss