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 15:41:32 GMT
Wow. You'd think they could at least put a notice on their website that it's unmaintained.
I've been using it how long??? Over a year...

In theory, we should still be able to use it. We're using Java 6, which it supports. I've
never had a single problem with it. However, if users compiled Log4j locally with Java 7 code
coverage would cause all tests to fail, and that is not desirable.

So, with that I rescind my suggestion.

Really? Why on earth don't they have a notice on their website that it's no longer maintained???

Nick

On May 29, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:

> I thought Emma was unmaintained since 2005? http://sourceforge.net/projects/emma/files/
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Nick Williams <nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net>
wrote:
> 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
> 
> Nick
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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


Mime
View raw message