Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 330791

Summary:	Wrong Emma Basic Block Count in Report
Product:	z_Archived	Reporter:	Marcel Hoetter <Marcel.Hoetter>
Component:	Buckminster	Assignee:	buckminster.core-inbox <buckminster.core-inbox>
Status:	CLOSED NOT_ECLIPSE	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P3	CC:	achim.demelt, Marcel.Hoetter
Version:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:

Description Marcel Hoetter

2010-11-22 07:11:11 EST

Build Identifier: 3.6

Copied from eclipse.tools.buckminster-dev newsgroup:

Comparing Emma coverage results from reports generated in my Eclipse IDE and via Buckminster (3.6), it came to my attention that the number of basic blocks reported by Buckminster is wrong: it represents the number of instructions instead.

The actual basic block count is not reported at all.

I think this is related to Emma Bug 2470533:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2470533&group_id=108932&atid=651897

The bug is still open, but seems to be fixed in recent Emma versions.

Is a version bump in Buckminster possible? 

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Achim Demelt

2010-11-23 16:05:44 EST

Unfortunately, it is not possible to simply provide a new version of EclEmma in Buckminster due to IP restrictions. Everything we provide for download from eclipse.org must be checked for intellectual property rights. Replacing the current version EclEmma with the new one will require some work from the Eclipse foundation's legal department.

In our case it's actually a bit tricky, because Buckminster uses EclEmma, which in turn uses (and contains) Emma. The bug you've linked to is reported against Emma (and is obviously still open), but when you report that it seems to be fixed in newer version, I assume you've also installed EclEmma. The EclEmma team sometimes patch Emma and package that changed version inside their bundle. That doesn't make things easier...

I guess at some point we'll upgrade to a newer version, but I'm not sure we'd do it right now.

As a workaround, you should be able to install the new version of the EclEmma plugin into a headless Buckminster using the director after you have installed your regular Buckminster features.

Comment 2 Marcel Hoetter

2010-11-26 10:23:06 EST

Thanks for the input!
We replaced the EclEmma core plug-in with the one from the newest EclEmma version (1.5.1).
Surprisingly, this did not solve the problem.
After a little more investigation, it turned out that EclEmma reports the correct values in the Coverage View in the Eclipse IDE. It does NOT produce correct values in an exported HTML.
I guess that EclEmma has an internal fix for the Coverage View, but the underlying Emma still has the bug mentioned above. :(
I will try to get some focus on this issue on the Emma or EclEmma bugtracker.

I am closing this bug again since Buckminster is not responsible for this.