[HACKYSTAT-DEV-L] Help with a problem in DailyProjectCoverage2 (new DPD design)

[Aaron Kagawa]

Philip,

I need some help debugging an issue in the DailyProjectCoverage2.  Here is how to reproduce it:

1) Rename TestDailyProjectCoverage2.brokenTestProjectCoverage2() to TestDailyProjectCoverage2.testProjectCoverage2().
2) Run the unit test and it _should_fail.  If you are running in Eclipse you should see the following output.

[CoverageRawDataMap for TestDailyProjectCoverage2 on 08-Jan-2004
 JBlanket
C: 1077800628000
    [fileName, , uncovered, 5, runTime, 1077800628000, misc, , granularity, method, tool, JBlanket, covered, 4, className, org.hackystat.stdext.activity.analysis.activetime.TestActiveTimeTrend, tstamp, 1073568438246, pMap, 000400004misc0000000009className00069org.hackystat.stdext.activity.analysis.activetime.TestActiveTimeTrend]
    [fileName, , uncovered, 3, runTime, 1077800628000, misc, , granularity, method, tool, JBlanket, covered, 3, className, org.hackystat.stdext.activity.analysis.projectactivetime.TestProjectActiveTime, tstamp, 1073568438248, pMap, 000400004misc0000000009className00078org.hackystat.stdext.activity.analysis.projectactivetime.TestProjectActiveTime]
    [fileName, , uncovered, 2, runTime, 1077800628000, misc, , granularity, method, tool, JBlanket, covered, 2, className, org.hackystat.stdext.common.selector.interval.DayInterval, tstamp, 1073568438305, pMap, 000400004misc0000000009className00057org.hackystat.stdext.common.selector.interval.DayInterval]
    [fileName, , uncovered, 5, runTime, 1077800628000, misc, , granularity, method, tool, JBlanket, covered, 8, className, org.hackystat.stdext.common.selector.interval.IntervalSelector, tstamp, 1073568438309, pMap, 000400004misc0000000009className00062org.hackystat.stdext.common.selector.interval.IntervalSelector]
    [fileName, , uncovered, 0, runTime, 1077800628000, misc, , granularity, method, tool, JBlanket, covered, 4, className, org.hackystat.stdext.common.selector.interval.IntervalUtility, tstamp, 1073568438310, pMap, 000400004misc0000000009className00061org.hackystat.stdext.common.selector.interval.IntervalUtility]
    [fileName, , uncovered, 1, runTime, 1077800628000, misc, , granularity, method, tool, JBlanket, covered, 1, className, org.hackystat.stdext.project.ProjectException, tstamp, 1073568438390, pMap, 000400004misc0000000009className00045org.hackystat.stdext.project.ProjectException]
    [fileName, , uncovered, 0, runTime, 1077800628000, misc, , granularity, method, tool, JBlanket, covered, 4, className, org.hackystat.stdext.test.HackystatCommandUnitTest, tstamp, 1073568438534, pMap, 000400004misc0000000009className00050org.hackystat.stdext.test.HackystatCommandUnitTest]
    [fileName, , uncovered, 2, runTime, 1077800628000, misc, , granularity, method, tool, JBlanket, covered, 0, className, org.hackystat.stdext.test.HackystatTestException, tstamp, 1073568438535, pMap, 000400004misc0000000009className00048org.hackystat.stdext.test.HackystatTestException]
    [fileName, , uncovered, 0, runTime, 1077800628000, misc, , granularity, method, tool, JBlanket, covered, 4, className, org.hackystat.stdext.test.Parameters, tstamp, 1073568438536, pMap, 000400004misc0000000009className00036org.hackystat.stdext.test.Parameters]
    [fileName, , uncovered, 0, runTime, 1077800628000, misc, , granularity, method, tool, JBlanket, covered, 3, className, org.hackystat.stdext.test.TestParameters, tstamp, 1073568438537, pMap, 000400004misc0000000009className00040org.hackystat.stdext.test.TestParameters]
]
accessing getNumCovered()
[CoverageFilePatternCache for TestDailyProjectCoverage2 08-Jan-2004 JBlanket
<FilePattern: C:\**> method numcovered:33 numuncovered:18
]
topLevelWorkspace=C:\work\hackyStdExt\
topLevelWorkspaceName=C:
metricValue=33
topLevelWorkspace=C:\svn\
topLevelWorkspaceName=C:
metricValue=33
topLevelWorkspace=C:\cvs\
topLevelWorkspaceName=C:
metricValue=33
accessing getNumUncovered()
[CoverageFilePatternCache for TestDailyProjectCoverage2 08-Jan-2004 JBlanket
<FilePattern: C:\**> method numcovered:33 numuncovered:18
<FilePattern: **> method numcovered:99
]
topLevelWorkspace=C:\work\hackyStdExt\
topLevelWorkspaceName=C:
metricValue=18
topLevelWorkspace=C:\svn\
topLevelWorkspaceName=C:
metricValue=18
topLevelWorkspace=C:\cvs\
topLevelWorkspaceName=C:
metricValue=18
numCovered=99
numUncovered=54


Notice the 99 actual value is exactly 3 times the expected value.  My guess is that the problem is from the 3 workspaces within the project.  Note that there seems to be no workspace root.  So, the three workspaces (C:\work\hackyStdExt\, C:\svn\, C:\cvs\) have the same top level workspace (C:\).  thus the following algorithm in the CoverageFilePatternCache.updateCacheWithWildCards() process the same toplevel workspace three times (which could be incorrect or correct depending on how you look at it).

    // Case 2: FP is wildcard, G is not.
    if ((filePattern.equals( this . wildCardFilePattern))
        && !granularity.equals( this . wildCardGranularity)) {
      // Iterate over top-level workspaces in this project.
      for (Iterator i = this . project .getWorkspaceSetIterator(); i.hasNext(); ) {
        Workspace topLevelWorkspace = (Workspace)i.next();
        System.out .println( "topLevelWorkspace=" + topLevelWorkspace.getCanonicalPath());
        String topLevelWorkspaceName = topLevelWorkspace.getTopLevelWorkspaceName();
        System.out .println( "topLevelWorkspaceName=" + topLevelWorkspaceName);
        FilePattern topLevelFilePattern = new FilePattern(topLevelWorkspaceName + "/**");
        // Get the size value for the top-level file pattern and this g.
        long metricValue = this .getCoverageMetricValue(topLevelFilePattern, granularity,
            metricName);
        System.out .println( "metricValue=" + metricValue);
        // Update the cache for ["**", g, m] We always want a cache hit for a wild card.
        this .incCache(filePattern, granularity, metricName, metricValue);
      }
    }   

It seems to me that if we want to change "<FilePattern: **> method numcovered:99 " to "<FilePattern: **> method numcovered:33", then we would have to put the toplevel workspaces into a Set to make sure we only process unique top level file patterns.

Anyway, let me know what you think.  The good news is that if it does get fixed, then the unit test will pass.

Thanks, Aaron