I noticied that the Halstead, Toad Code Rating, and Maintainability Index show in the row view do not jibe with that in the “Report” for the same package. For example, I have a package whose maintainability index is really 97.88 but shows a 81.01 in the tabular view (top section). I opened 12.6.0.53 and the figures are correct so this shows a regression in 12.7.0.51.
Hi jdziurlaj,
Some of the code metric values may have changed a bit between 12.6 and 12.7 yes. Part of the calculation for the Maintainability Index relies on the comment
weight, which was not always being included correctly in 12.6. We noticed this as we were making modifications for 12.7. However, in looking further into this metric, it seems fixing that issue surfaced another issue (maybe even two).
I’ll discuss this further with Greg tomorrow and we’ll see if we can get this figure ironed out.
Thanks for letting us know about this!
-John
From: jdziurlaj [mailto:bounce-jdziurlaj@toadworld.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:42 PM
To: toadoraclebeta@toadworld.com
Subject: [Toad for Oracle - Beta Discussion Forum] Code Analysis Regressions
Thread created by jdziurlaj
I noticied that the Halstead, Toad Code Rating, and Maintainability Index show in the row view do not jibe with that in the “Report” for the same package. For example, I have a package whose
maintainability index is really 97.88 but shows a 81.01 in the tabular view (top section). I opened 12.6.0.53 and the figures are correct so this shows a regression in 12.7.0.51.
To reply, please reply-all to this email.
Stop receiving emails on this subject.
Or
Unsubscribe from Toad for Oracle - Beta notifications altogether.
Toad for Oracle - Beta Discussion Forum
Flag
this post as spam/abuse.
Hi jdziurlaj,
The Halstead, Maintainability, and Toad Code Ratings have been updated and should be correct starting with the next beta. The main issue was in the Maintainability calculation and the comment weight measurement using the sin function. Your numbers will still be off from Toad 12.6, but they should look slightly better if comments were included in the source.
Please let us know if you see anything significantly off, and thanks again for bringing this to our attention!
-John