Adrian Crum wrote: > Adam Heath wrote: >> Scott Gray wrote: >>> On 11/12/2009, at 6:41 AM, Adam Heath wrote: >>> >>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>> Hi Adam, >>>>> >>>>> Looking at the results my first impression is that the coverage is >>>>> under-reported. For example, the accounting component has quite a few >>>>> tests but no coverage is shown at all (except for the test package >>>>> itself). Possibly because there is lot of logic in simple methods but >>>>> I'm 100% sure java code is also run during the tests. >>>>> >>>>> But still a great start and something that will be immensely useful if >>>>> we can up the accuracy a bit. >>>> Well, it doesn't, really. If you click thru to accounting.test, >>>> you'll see that there aren't really that many tests. And, upon >>>> further investigation, the lines after the runSync calls aren't run, >>>> due to some exception most likely. I'm not certian if this is do to >>>> my changes, or if the tests themselves are broken. I'm running a >>>> plain test run now to check that. Plus, there actually *is* line hits >>>> in accounting.invoice. >>> The tests seem to be running fine on buildbot >>> (http://ci.apache.org/waterfall?show=ofbiz-trunk), I'm guessing it's the >>> test run problem that's causing the under reporting. There may not be >>> that many explicit accounting tests (even though it is a lot compared to >>> other components) but a lot of tests also touch accounting >>> indirectly. There is just no way that only 53 lines of java code are >>> being executed >>> in accounting during the full test run. I know for a fact that code is >>> executed from PaymentGatewayServices, FinAccountPaymentServices, >>> PaymentWorker, UtilAccounting and a few others during the tests. >> >> I had some other changes in that tree that were causing tests to fail. >> I've rerun it now, all current tests pass, and I've uploaded a new >> report to http://www.brainfood.com/ofbiz-coverage > > Oops, link doesn't work.
http://www.brainfood.com/ofbiz-coverage/
