db-derby-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Apache Wiki <wikidi...@apache.org>
Subject [Db-derby Wiki] Update of "TenElevenOneChecklist" by RichardHillegas
Date Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:52:20 GMT
Dear Wiki user,

You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Db-derby Wiki" for change notification.

The "TenElevenOneChecklist" page has been changed by RichardHillegas:

  ||<<Icon(checkmark.png)>> || Performance tests (e.g., org.apache.derbyTesting.perf.clients.Runner)
||Inspected [[http://home.online.no/~olmsan/derby/perf/|the nightly performance test results]]
and didn't see any negative trend over the last year on trunk. I'm assuming this is valid
for the RC too, but didn't actually test the RC. || Knut  ||
  ||<<Icon(checkmark.png)>> ||upgrade and compatibility (ask Kathey) || I've run
suites.All against a soft-upgraded database. No problems found. The problems with RC1 were
fixed. || Knut ||
  ||<<Icon(checkmark.png)>> ||Large data volume tests || all pass || Myrna ||
- ||<<Icon(angry.png)>> ||Recovery after crashing engine || - || - ||
+ ||<<Icon(checkmark.png)>> ||Crash recovery || I ran the CryptoCrashRecovery
test against the debug distribution and saw no problems. I ran some ad hoc tests which killed
the engine in the middle of writing data but I saw no problems when I subsequently booted
the database. || Rick ||
  ||<<Icon(checkmark.png)>> ||Java EE CTS ||All tests in the JDBC sub-suite of
Java EE CTS version 6.0 passed. || Knut ||
  ||<<Icon(checkmark.png)>> ||Code coverage results ||The latest [[https://builds.apache.org/job/Derby-JaCoCo/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/coverage-report/index.html|code
coverage report]] on trunk says 80% of the instructions are covered. I believe this is about
the same as before (don't have the number from the previous release). || Knut ||
  ||<<Icon(checkmark.png)>> ||Check javadocs for known vulnerability using the
API Documentation Updater Tool]] || Tool indicated no problems; javadoc looks correct || Kim

View raw message