Thanks Sean, for your great idea. Code coverage is very useful and helpful for our project, especially JCK is not available now. We can see the latest report[1] to check the result. For some modules, there's really some space to improve.
But there's also a challenge about emma on Harmony, which recorded in harmony wiki[2] by me. The wiki page[2] also records my current solution and details of it. Hope we can improve it together. [1]:http://people.apache.org/~tellison/emma/ [2]:http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/coverageEMMA 2007/9/10, Sean Qiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi, guys > > Shall we integrate the emma into our BTI 2.0 to get the test coverage > report? > AFAIK, Robert has spent a number of time on using our unit test to emma > coverage report. > Maybe we can generate the coverage from the BTI test besides our unit > test. > > IMHO, we can maintain a individual target as the "run-cc" target in > script/main.xml, like "run-coverage" or something else. > It will set up its requisite like an instrumented jre to run the test. > Before running the test, we need to add <jvmarg > value="-Xbootclasspath/p:${instrumented-classlib}"> for each adaptor's > tested jvm task. > > Finally, the "run-coverage" command call each adaptor as normal except > assigning the ${instrumented-classlib} to the instrumented classlib jars. > The generated report can be placed to build/coverage-report or some more > proper places. > > I think this approach can extend the BTI 2.0 without too many > modifications. > Are there any comments about this? Or any other approach? Any suggestion > is > welcomed. > > -- > Sean Qiu > China Software Development Lab, IBM > -- Robert Hu China Software Development Lab, IBM
