logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Williams <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net>
Subject Re: JaCoCo usage
Date Wed, 29 May 2013 14:52:58 GMT
I'm actually going to go out on a limb here and say that we shouldn't use either.

I'm familiar with two code coverage tools, personally. IntelliJ IDEA coverage (kind of free
but doesn't support Maven) and Emma Coverage (free and supports Maven). I've used Emma extensively.
It's extremely accurate, and it's fast. I note three projects below with approximate time
with and without Emma:

Project #1: 550 tests
Build time without Emma: ~3 minutes
Build time with Emma: ~4.5 minutes

Project #2: 1176 tests
Build time without Emma: ~4.5 minutes
Build time with Emma: ~6.5 minutes

Project #3: 3174 tests
Build time without Emma: ~ 14 minutes
Build time with Emma: ~ 18 minutes

I'd highly recommend we go with Emma instead. It has a Maven plugin: http://emma.sourceforge.net/plugins/index.html


On May 29, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:

> The Commons Math folks want to run JaCoCo because it is much faster for them than Cobertura
(hours vs. minutes according to them). The problem is that JaCoCo reports 0% code coverage
in certain cases and this is a documented issue that does not look easy to fix. So in my mind,
slow and right is better than fast and wrong. 
> Gary
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> I didn't follow the conversation on the Commons list.  What advantage(s) does JaCoCo
have over Cobertura?  Is there a need to run both or could we just standardize on one of them.
 I believe the Cobertura plugin runs during the site build so if JaCoCo was the same I'm not
sure why we would need a toggle, unless we only wanted to run a code coverage report.
> Ralph
> On May 28, 2013, at 6:14 PM, ggregory@apache.org wrote:
> > Author: ggregory
> > Date: Wed May 29 01:14:18 2013
> > New Revision: 1487179
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1487179
> > Log:
> > Enable code coverage. A comment in the POMs used to say this was broken with the
2.2 Cobertura plugin, but it works just fine with 2.5.2. To consider: Should we do like Apache
Commons and provide a toggle to run JaCoCo too?
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> -- 
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org 
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

View raw message