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-20190101-2330-20190…
(and it’s still the case today on
http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190202/XWikiReport-20190101-2330-20190…).
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+platfo…
vs
http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190101/clover-commons+rendering+platfo…
*
http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190108/clover-commons+rendering+platfo…
vs
http://maven.xwiki.org/site/clover/20190101/clover-commons+rendering+platfo…
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