Well done, Enrico! It seems the CI job seems to be ready to get in. Can you make the Jenkins job as part of .test-infra?
- Sijie On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:55 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
