1<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
2<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
3<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en">
4<head>
5  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
6  <link rel="stylesheet" href=".resources/doc.css" charset="UTF-8" type="text/css" />
7  <link rel="stylesheet" href="../coverage/.resources/prettify.css" charset="UTF-8" type="text/css" />
8  <link rel="shortcut icon" href=".resources/report.gif" type="image/gif" />
9  <script type="text/javascript" src="../coverage/.resources/prettify.js"></script>
10  <title>JaCoCo - Implementation Design</title>
11</head>
12<body onload="prettyPrint()">
13
14<div class="breadcrumb">
15  <a href="../index.html" class="el_report">JaCoCo</a> &gt;
16  <a href="index.html" class="el_group">Documentation</a> &gt;
17  <span class="el_source">Implementation Design</span>
18</div>
19<div id="content">
20
21<h1>Implementation Design</h1>
22
23<p>
24  This is a unordered list of implementation design decisions. Each topic tries
25  to follow this structure:
26</p>
27
28<ul>
29  <li>Problem statement</li>
30  <li>Proposed Solution</li>
31  <li>Alternatives and Discussion</li>
32</ul>
33
34
35<h2>Coverage Analysis Mechanism</h2>
36
37<p class="intro">
38  Coverage information has to be collected at runtime. For this purpose JaCoCo
39  creates instrumented versions of the original class definitions. The
40  instrumentation process happens on-the-fly during class loading using so
41  called Java agents.
42</p>
43
44<p>
45  There are several different approaches to collect coverage information. For
46  each approach different implementation techniques are known. The following
47  diagram gives an overview with the techniques used by JaCoCo highlighted:
48</p>
49
50<img src=".resources/implementation.png" alt="Coverage Implementation Techniques"/>
51
52<p>
53  Byte code instrumentation is very fast, can be implemented in pure Java and
54  works with every Java VM. On-the-fly instrumentation with the Java agent
55  hook can be added to the JVM without any modification of the target
56  application.
57</p>
58
59<p>
60  The Java agent hook requires at least 1.5 JVMs. Class files compiled with
61  debug information (line numbers) allow for source code highlighting. Unluckily
62  some Java language constructs get compiled to byte code that produces
63  unexpected highlighting results, especially in case of implicitly generated
64  code like default constructors or control structures for finally statements.
65</p>
66
67
68<h2>Coverage Agent Isolation</h2>
69
70<p class="intro">
71  The Java agent is loaded by the application class loader. Therefore the
72  classes of the agent live in the same name space like the application classes
73  which can result in clashes especially with the third party library ASM. The
74  JoCoCo build therefore moves all agent classes into a unique package.
75</p>
76
77<p>
78  The JaCoCo build renames all classes contained in the
79  <code>jacocoagent.jar</code> into classes with a
80  <code>org.jacoco.agent.rt_&lt;randomid&gt;</code> prefix, including the
81  required ASM library classes. The identifier is created from a random number.
82  As the agent does not provide any API, no one should be affected by this
83  renaming. This trick also allows that JaCoCo tests can be verified with
84  JaCoCo.
85</p>
86
87
88<h2>Minimal Java Version</h2>
89
90<p class="intro">
91  JaCoCo requires Java 1.5.
92</p>
93
94<p>
95  The Java agent mechanism used for on-the-fly instrumentation became available
96  with Java 1.5 VMs. Coding and testing with Java 1.5 language level is more
97  efficient, less error-prone &ndash; and more fun than with older versions.
98  JaCoCo will still allow to run against Java code compiled for these.
99</p>
100
101
102<h2>Byte Code Manipulation</h2>
103
104<p class="intro">
105  Instrumentation requires mechanisms to modify and generate Java byte code.
106  JaCoCo uses the ASM library for this purpose internally.
107</p>
108
109<p>
110  Implementing the Java byte code specification would be an extensive and
111  error-prone task. Therefore an existing library should be used. The
112  <a href="http://asm.objectweb.org/">ASM</a> library is lightweight, easy to
113  use and very efficient in terms of memory and CPU usage. It is actively
114  maintained and includes as huge regression test suite. Its simplified BSD
115  license is approved by the Eclipse Foundation for usage with EPL products.
116</p>
117
118<h2>Java Class Identity</h2>
119
120<p class="intro">
121  Each class loaded at runtime needs a unique identity to associate coverage data with.
122  JaCoCo creates such identities by a CRC64 hash code of the raw class definition.
123</p>
124
125<p>
126  In multi-classloader environments the plain name of a class does not
127  unambiguously identify a class. For example OSGi allows to use different
128  versions of the same class to be loaded within the same VM. In complex
129  deployment scenarios the actual version of the test target might be different
130  from current development version. A code coverage report should guarantee that
131  the presented figures are extracted from a valid test target. A hash code of
132  the class definitions allows to differentiate between classes and versions of
133  classes. The CRC64 hash computation is simple and fast resulting in a small 64
134  bit identifier.
135</p>
136
137<p>
138  The same class definition might be loaded by class loaders which will result
139  in different classes for the Java runtime system. For coverage analysis this
140  distinction should be irrelevant. Class definitions might be altered by other
141  instrumentation based technologies (e.g. AspectJ). In this case the hash code
142  will change and identity gets lost. On the other hand code coverage analysis
143  based on classes that have been somehow altered will produce unexpected
144  results. The CRC64 code might produce so called <i>collisions</i>, i.e.
145  creating the same hash code for two different classes. Although CRC64 is not
146  cryptographically strong and collision examples can be easily computed, for
147  regular class files the collision probability is very low.
148</p>
149
150<h2>Coverage Runtime Dependency</h2>
151
152<p class="intro">
153  Instrumented code typically gets a dependency to a coverage runtime which is
154  responsible for collecting and storing execution data. JaCoCo uses JRE types
155  only in generated instrumentation code.
156</p>
157
158<p>
159  Making a runtime library available to all instrumented classes can be a
160  painful or impossible task in frameworks that use their own class loading
161  mechanisms. Since Java 1.6 <code>java.lang.instrument.Instrumentation</code>
162  has an API to extends the bootsstrap loader. As our minimum target is Java 1.5
163  JaCoCo decouples the instrumented classes and the coverage runtime through
164  official JRE API types only. The instrumented classes communicate through the
165  <code>Object.equals(Object)</code> method with the runtime. A instrumented
166  class can retrieve its probe array instance with the following code. Note
167  that only JRE APIs are used:
168</p>
169
170
171<pre class="source lang-java linenums">
172Object access = ...                          // Retrieve instance
173
174Object[] args = new Object[3];
175args[0] = Long.valueOf(8060044182221863588); // class id
176args[1] = "com/example/MyClass";             // class name
177args[2] = Integer.valueOf(24);               // probe count
178
179access.equals(args);
180
181boolean[] probes = (boolean[]) args[0];
182</pre>
183
184<p>
185  The most tricky part takes place in line 1 and is not shown in the snippet
186  above. The object instance providing access to the coverage runtime through
187  its <code>equals()</code> method has to be obtained. Different approaches have
188  been implemented and tested so far:
189</p>
190
191<ul>
192  <li><b><code>SystemPropertiesRuntime</code></b>: This approach stores the
193    object instance under a system property. This solution breaks the contract
194    that system properties must only contain <code>java.lang.String</code>
195    values and therefore causes trouble in applications that rely on this
196    definition (e.g. Ant).</li>
197  <li><b><code>LoggerRuntime</code></b>: Here we use a shared
198    <code>java.util.logging.Logger</code> and communicate through the logging
199    parameter array instead of a <code>equals()</code> method. The coverage
200    runtime registers a custom <code>Handler</code> to receive the parameter
201    array. This approach might break environments that install their own log
202    managers (e.g. Glassfish).</li>
203  <li><b><code>URLStreamHandlerRuntime</code></b>: This runtime registers a
204    <code>URLStreamHandler</code> for a "jacoco-xxxxx" protocol. Instrumented
205    classes open a connection on this protocol. The returned connection object
206    is the one that provides access to the coverage runtime through its
207    <code>equals()</code> method. However to register the protocol the runtime
208    needs to access internal members of the <code>java.net.URL</code> class.</li>
209  <li><b><code>ModifiedSystemClassRuntime</code></b>: This approach adds a
210    public static field to an existing JRE class through instrumentation. Unlike
211    the other methods above this is only possible for environments where a Java
212    agent is active.</li>
213</ul>
214
215<p>
216  The current JaCoCo Java agent implementation uses the
217  <code>ModifiedSystemClassRuntime</code> adding a field to the class
218  <code>java.sql.Types</code>.
219</p>
220
221
222<h2>Memory Usage</h2>
223
224<p class="intro">
225  Coverage analysis for huge projects with several thousand classes or hundred
226  thousand lines of code should be possible. To allow this with reasonable
227  memory usage the coverage analysis is based on streaming patterns and
228  "depth first" traversals.
229</p>
230
231<p>
232  The complete data tree of a huge coverage report is too big to fit into a
233  reasonable heap memory configuration. Therefore the coverage analysis and
234  report generation is implemented as "depth first" traversals. Which means that
235  at any point in time only the following data has to be held in working memory:
236</p>
237
238<ul>
239  <li>A single class which is currently processed.</li>
240  <li>The summary information of all parents of this class (package, groups).</li>
241</ul>
242
243<h2>Java Element Identifiers</h2>
244
245<p class="intro">
246  The Java language and the Java VM use different String representation formats
247  for Java elements. For example while a type reference in Java reads like
248  <code>java.lang.Object</code>, the VM references the same type as
249  <code>Ljava/lang/Object;</code>. The JaCoCo API is based on VM identifiers only.
250</p>
251
252<p>
253  Using VM identifiers directly does not cause any transformation overhead at
254  runtime. There are several programming languages based on the Java VM that
255  might use different notations. Specific transformations should therefore only
256  happen at the user interface level, for example during report generation.
257</p>
258
259<h2>Modularization of the JaCoCo implementation</h2>
260
261<p class="intro">
262  JaCoCo is implemented in several modules providing different functionality.
263  These modules are provided as OSGi bundles with proper manifest files. But
264  there are no dependencies on OSGi itself.
265</p>
266
267<p>
268  Using OSGi bundles allows well defined dependencies at development time and
269  at runtime in OSGi containers. As there are no dependencies on OSGi, the
270  bundles can also be used like regular JAR files.
271</p>
272
273</div>
274<div class="footer">
275  <span class="right"><a href="@jacoco.home.url@">JaCoCo</a> @qualified.bundle.version@</span>
276  <a href="license.html">Copyright</a> &copy; @copyright.years@ Mountainminds GmbH &amp; Co. KG and Contributors
277</div>
278
279</body>
280</html>
281