I did instrument all the jars (including the locale jars) except derbyTesting.jar. Did you use EMMA with ant?
Manjula On 5/8/08, Henri van de Scheur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi again! > > I do not understand these differences. I have instrumented the same jars, > but not all. I did not include derbyTesting.jar and the derbyLocale*.jars. > So I instrumented the 5 following jars: derby.jar, derbyclient.jar, > derbynet.jar, derbyrun.jar and derbytools.jar. > I hope to find an explanation when I can compare your reports with mine. > > Henri > Manjula Kutty wrote: > > I took the 10.4.1.3 Release candidate jars. > I used the sun jdks. Also is there a chance that I was giving all > permission to all the codebases in the derby_tests policy file? > > -Manjula > > > On 5/7/08, Henri van de Scheur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Manjula! > > > > I was able to fix the problem with linking the source-code, so now the > > site I mentioned before shows correct and complete results. > > To summarize and compare with your results: > > OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY > > -------------------------------------------------- > > all classes: 90% (1264/1397) > > Method : 75% (16948/22513) > > Block : 73% (479495/660441) > > Line : 71% (100760/141054) > > > > OVERALL STATS SUMMARY > > total packages: 89 > > total executable files: 1280 > > total classes: 1397 > > total methods: 22513 > > total executable lines: 141054 > > > > So we see a couple of (general) differences: > > > > 1. In general you report higher numbers for the totals > > 2. In general I find higher numbers for coverage > > > > Can this be explained by just the differences in our jvm's (as different > > vendors) or should we investigate more? > > For my numbers I did a little workaround regarding the source-code: I > > used the source-code from the 10.4-branch and not the official 10.4.1.3 > > > > Thanks ! > > > > Henri > > > > Manjula Kutty wrote: > > > > Hi Henri > > > > I ran suites.all. I used my derby_tests policy (Actually the one which > > gives all permission). I ran it with jdk142, 15 and 16. I will be linking > > the full report to the wiki. > > > > Thanks > > Manjula > > > > > > On 5/6/08, Henri van de Scheur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Manjula Kutty wrote: > > > > > > > OVERALL COVERAGE SUMMARY > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > all classes: 87% (1226/1404) Method : 74% (16629/22556) > > > > Block : 69% (486715/704201) > > > > Line : 69% (101022.4/146764) > > > > > > > > OVERALL STATS SUMMARY > > > > total packages: 90 > > > > total executable files: 1286 > > > > total classes: 1404 > > > > total methods: 22556 > > > > total executable lines: 146764 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Thanks, > > > > Manjula. > > > > > > > Hi Manjula! > > > > > > What testsuite did you use and which jvm-versions? > > > I used Emma to run with suitesAll on jvm1.4, jvm1.5 and jvm1.6 (both > > > 32- and 64-mode). Results can be found here: > > > http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/10.4.1.3_RC/Emma.html > > > Unfortunately I have had some problems linking the source-code to > > > these reports, but I plan to do that within the next 24 hours (if svn > > > allows > > > me....). > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Henri > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Manjula. > > > > -- > > With regards, > > > > Henri van de Scheur, Database Technology Group, > Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway > > -- Thanks, Manjula.
