buildr-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Schröder ...@blau.de>
Subject Re: require cobertura.rb
Date Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:33:14 GMT
hi adam,

i think that requiring the task adds the cobertura dependencies to the classpath. doing so
will result in the classes beeing instrumented (i think). we simply removed code coverage
from our builds because it's just a nice to have and looking at the coverage should be a development
step that is way more than looking at the percentage...

kind regards,
peter


Am 12.07.2010 um 18:42 schrieb Adam Crain:

> Thanks Rhett. I'm happy with that solution! I just thought it was a funny thing not to
have for free somehow since everybody needs a build without coverage instrumentation. I thought
maybe I was being silly.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rhett Sutphin on behalf of Rhett Sutphin
> Sent: Mon 7/12/2010 12:18 PM
> To: users@buildr.apache.org
> Subject: Re: require cobertura.rb
> 
> Hi Adam,
> 
> On Jul 12, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Adam Crain wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Why does just requiring cobertura.rb automically instrument the classes for all buildr
tasks?
>> 
>> I would have imagined that this would happen only with the cobertura:html, cobertura:xml
and cobertura:check tasks.
>> 
>> If I don't want to instrument for normal builds, is my only recourse using another
custom command line option to programmatically require cobertura?
> 
> This is what I do for Emma, which is similar.
> 
> In the buildfile:
> 
> require 'emma' if ENV['EMMA'] =~ /^y/i
> 
> Then:
> 
> $ buildr test          # without
> $ buildr test EMMA=yes # with
> 
> Rhett
> 
>> 
>> thanks!
>> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message