You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Erwan de FERRIERES <er...@nereide.fr> on 2010/02/17 19:33:16 UTC
Code coverage
Hi all,
while taking a new look to code coverage, will it be hard to use emma
instead of cobertura ?
In this case, we could include the library to OFBiz, as it is under a
CPL license.
Cheers,
--
Erwan de FERRIERES
www.nereide.biz
Re: Code coverage
Posted by Erwan de FERRIERES <er...@nereide.fr>.
On 17/02/2010 20:53, Adam Heath wrote:
../..
> Actually, emma doesn't look like it's maintained anymore. Last
> download available was made back in 2005.
>
It's why I saw too...
--
Erwan de FERRIERES
www.nereide.biz
Re: Code coverage
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
Adam Heath wrote:
> Adam Heath wrote:
>> Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> while taking a new look to code coverage, will it be hard to use emma
>>> instead of cobertura ?
>>> In this case, we could include the library to OFBiz, as it is under a
>>> CPL license.
>> Not super hard, no; I wrote the interface to be extensible with other
>> tools.
>
> I'm looking at it's sample reports, and I like cobertura's better. I
> don't know if it is the same data, tho.
>
> I'll look into adding support for it.
Actually, emma doesn't look like it's maintained anymore. Last
download available was made back in 2005.
Re: Code coverage
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
Adam Heath wrote:
> Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> while taking a new look to code coverage, will it be hard to use emma
>> instead of cobertura ?
>> In this case, we could include the library to OFBiz, as it is under a
>> CPL license.
>
> Not super hard, no; I wrote the interface to be extensible with other
> tools.
I'm looking at it's sample reports, and I like cobertura's better. I
don't know if it is the same data, tho.
I'll look into adding support for it.
Re: Code coverage
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> while taking a new look to code coverage, will it be hard to use emma
> instead of cobertura ?
> In this case, we could include the library to OFBiz, as it is under a
> CPL license.
Not super hard, no; I wrote the interface to be extensible with other
tools.