Hi Thomas and all,

I’ve just done the analysis of the xwiki-commons-job TPC loss displayed on 
http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190108/XWikiReport-20190101-2330-20190108-0150.html
 (and it’s still the case today on 
http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190202/XWikiReport-20190101-2330-20190202-0222.html).

xwiki-commons-job       84.3812 84.2416 -0.1395 -0.0002

There were only 2 classes that have had changes in TPC:
* DefaultJobProgress - lowered TPC
* AbstractRequest - increased TPC

But there’s more lowering than increasing globally which is why it’s in red.

Specifically the lowering happened in 2 places:
* 
http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190108/clover-commons+rendering+platform-20190108-0150/org/xwiki/job/internal/DefaultJobProgress.html?line=133#src-133
 vs 
http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190101/clover-commons+rendering+platform-20190101-2330/org/xwiki/job/internal/DefaultJobProgress.html?line=133#src-133
* 
http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190108/clover-commons+rendering+platform-20190108-0150/org/xwiki/job/internal/DefaultJobProgress.html?line=219#src-219
 vs 
http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190101/clover-commons+rendering+platform-20190101-2330/org/xwiki/job/internal/DefaultJobProgress.html?line=219#src-219

Note that no source code changed in the job module.

Conclusions:
* It was hard to track and I need to improve the report to show a package level 
difference too and not just modules, at least for modules going down. Actually, 
even better would be a class level difference too for modules going down.
* In this case, I believe we had some bugs in XWiki somewhere that led to 
hitting the "Could not find any matching step for source [{}]. Ignoring 
EndStepProgress.” error. Could someone confirm that, it rings a bell to me?
* It also shows there’s no module level tests (ie unit tests) that go on in 
this IF and it would be good to add one to prove that we get a log when we have 
an end without a start.

It’s interesting because this is a use case where our global TPC went down 
because we fixed a bug (and thus indirectly we enter into less code). It mostly 
highlights that we don’t tests this case and we should.

Thanks
-Vincent

Reply via email to