code coverage and cpl 1.0/apl 2.0 compatibility

[Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>]

I'm looking at various code coverage tools; there are very few free ones
available.

I've personally used cobertura; it's gpl v2.0(1), so not compatible.

clover is what is installed for use by apache projects; but it's
actually non-free, so I'm not even going to consider it.

emma is cpl 1.0(2); I haven't been able to find any definitive answer
about license compatibility, but from reading their faq(3), it appears
to be compatible.

cobertura has the nicest report, and includes mccabe's average
cyclomatic code complexity; none of the others do this.

Anyone else have any thoughts/pointers?


1: http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html
2: http://emma.sourceforge.net/license.html
3: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html

Re: code coverage and cpl 1.0/apl 2.0 compatibility

[David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Thanks for that question Adrian, I was wondering the same thing...

-David



On Sep 3, 2008, at 23:29, Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> wrote:

> I'm not clear on what you're asking. I use code analysis here, but  
> it's not something I would consider including in the project. Why  
> would the tool's license be an issue?
>
> -Adrian
>
> Adam Heath wrote:
>> I'm looking at various code coverage tools; there are very few free  
>> ones
>> available.
>> I've personally used cobertura; it's gpl v2.0(1), so not compatible.
>> clover is what is installed for use by apache projects; but it's
>> actually non-free, so I'm not even going to consider it.
>> emma is cpl 1.0(2); I haven't been able to find any definitive answer
>> about license compatibility, but from reading their faq(3), it  
>> appears
>> to be compatible.
>> cobertura has the nicest report, and includes mccabe's average
>> cyclomatic code complexity; none of the others do this.
>> Anyone else have any thoughts/pointers?
>> 1: http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html
>> 2: http://emma.sourceforge.net/license.html
>> 3: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html

Re: code coverage and cpl 1.0/apl 2.0 compatibility

[Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>]

Adrian Crum wrote:
> I'm not clear on what you're asking. I use code analysis here, but it's
> not something I would consider including in the project. Why would the
> tool's license be an issue?

Because if it is part of some standard test-suite run, then it has to be
distributed with the project, just like any other library.

Then, there is the modification of byte-code(either before running, in a
batch, or at runtime, dynamically).

Anyways, I've got a possible solution.  Based on what I have done for
webslinger, I've written an interface that code analysis tools
implement, which then the startup code can use to instrument the code.
Should be done this weekend(balancing with work duties and all), with at
least one tool(cobertura) as an example(distributed separately).

Re: code coverage and cpl 1.0/apl 2.0 compatibility

[Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>]

I'm not clear on what you're asking. I use code analysis here, but it's 
not something I would consider including in the project. Why would the 
tool's license be an issue?

-Adrian

Adam Heath wrote:
> I'm looking at various code coverage tools; there are very few free ones
> available.
> 
> I've personally used cobertura; it's gpl v2.0(1), so not compatible.
> 
> clover is what is installed for use by apache projects; but it's
> actually non-free, so I'm not even going to consider it.
> 
> emma is cpl 1.0(2); I haven't been able to find any definitive answer
> about license compatibility, but from reading their faq(3), it appears
> to be compatible.
> 
> cobertura has the nicest report, and includes mccabe's average
> cyclomatic code complexity; none of the others do this.
> 
> Anyone else have any thoughts/pointers?
> 
> 
> 1: http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html
> 2: http://emma.sourceforge.net/license.html
> 3: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
>