logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JaCoCo usage
Date Wed, 29 May 2013 15:03:32 GMT
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<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> 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<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Mime
View raw message