I have to clean up the patch but actually code coverage report makes sense and it is reporting a 72% code coverage (using coveralls.io KPI). Most cases of non covered code are about: - classes which do not have test cases in the same module (I am working on this) - classes which are not abstact but contains only constants or utility methods - interfaces, default methods - Circe and NativeIO
Please note that generated code like protobuf, nar or lombok is already excluded in the current WIP patch. See https://coveralls.io/builds/15432041 I think that with little work we can fill most of the gaps, at least cleaning up the noise. I need to finish the work about classes not tested in the same package then we will be able to draw a roadmap, creating subtask for missing test cases, cleaning up interfaces..... Enrico Il dom 11 feb 2018, 17:43 Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > Created this job on CI > > https://builds.apache.org/job/bookkeeper-code-coverage-wip/ > > I am working on a way to create a better report, using this suggestion > > http://www.lorenzobettini.it/2017/02/jacoco-code-coverage-and-report-of-multiple-eclipse-plug-in-projects/ > > Build takes really long time with JaCoCo instrumentation, so I will use > Apache CI > > Enrico > > > 2018-02-07 17:24 GMT+01:00 Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> 2018-02-05 22:33 GMT+01:00 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com>: >> >>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Il lun 5 feb 2018, 18:11 David Rusek <d...@streaml.io> ha scritto: >>> > >>> > > It sounds like we didn't do anything with the info for a long time. >>> > Enrico, >>> > > I'm glad you're looking at it! Are you planning on filing some issues >>> > > related to interpreting the coverage data and improving it? >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > It was long time ago when I started to experiment with bookkeeper >>> codebase. >>> > We had some problems and I had other priorities. >>> > I will try to resume this thread on next weeks I think that the >>> culprit of >>> > our problems was the way we were performing BC tests. >>> > I have not much time so I will go on one step at a time, if you have >>> time >>> > any help is appreciated. >>> > >>> > First step will be to test locally jacoco and then to restore the CI >>> jobs >>> > >>> >>> just one suggestion when you are trying to restore CI jobs, please start >>> with a separate CI job and let the CI job run for a while to ensure it >>> doesn't have any side efforts before enforcing it on the other jobs. >>> >>> >> >> Create a new PR to upgrade Code Coverage configuration >> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1129 >> >> This is an example of current master report: >> https://coveralls.io/jobs/33538314 >> >> we are at 61 % (using default metrics) >> >> Enrico >> >> >>> >>> > >>> > Ideally I would like to have some automated way to keep an eye on BK >>> and >>> > maybe (not sure it is a big deal) to perform code coverage analysis >>> even on >>> > PRs. >>> > >>> > One big problem is that our corpus of tests is very heavy as most of >>> the >>> > tests start a new cluster. >>> > Recently we started to use mockito in order to perform narrower unit >>> > testing. >>> > >>> > Stay tuned >>> > >>> > Enrico >>> > >>> > Enrico >>> > >>> > > >>> > > -Dave >>> >> >> > -- -- Enrico Olivelli
