You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> on 2012/11/19 23:02:33 UTC
Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
Hi all,
Given our common agreement that we want to increase unit test coverage
in the project, I started down the path of trying to get a coverage
report generation process going. Then I realized I should ask the
list if there is a preference for tools.
Does anyone have a preference?
I've looked at emma [1] and cobertura [2] so far.
-chip
[1] http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Cemma%7Cemma%7C2.1.5320%7Cjar
[2] http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Ccobertura%7Ccobertura%7C1.9rc1%7Cjar
RE: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.
I looked at sonar data few weeks ago and some of the critical issues can be looked at and that is useful data.
As we are early stages of releases, fixing these issues is taking lower priority. I would vote to continue with it.
Regarding unit test coverage, I think the coverage is too low at this point. It doesn't hurt to implement coverage tool but data might not be that useful. If we have some external goal and if we run the tool once that goal is met, data can be used to improve coverage.
-----Original Message-----
From: Olivier Lamy [mailto:olamy@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 3:06 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
you can have a look at jacoco too: http://www.eclemma.org/jacoco/index.html
Note, I didn't maintained very well the sonar part
(https://analysis.apache.org) which is not really up2date.
Do we continue using that or not ?
2012/11/19 Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> Given our common agreement that we want to increase unit test coverage
> in the project, I started down the path of trying to get a coverage
> report generation process going. Then I realized I should ask the
> list if there is a preference for tools.
>
> Does anyone have a preference?
>
> I've looked at emma [1] and cobertura [2] so far.
>
> -chip
>
> [1]
> http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Cemma%7Cemma%7C2.1.5320%7Cja
> r [2]
> http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Ccobertura%7Ccobertura%7C1.9
> rc1%7Cjar
--
Olivier Lamy
Talend: http://coders.talend.com
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
you can have a look at jacoco too: http://www.eclemma.org/jacoco/index.html
Note, I didn't maintained very well the sonar part
(https://analysis.apache.org) which is not really up2date.
Do we continue using that or not ?
2012/11/19 Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> Given our common agreement that we want to increase unit test coverage
> in the project, I started down the path of trying to get a coverage
> report generation process going. Then I realized I should ask the
> list if there is a preference for tools.
>
> Does anyone have a preference?
>
> I've looked at emma [1] and cobertura [2] so far.
>
> -chip
>
> [1] http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Cemma%7Cemma%7C2.1.5320%7Cjar
> [2] http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Ccobertura%7Ccobertura%7C1.9rc1%7Cjar
--
Olivier Lamy
Talend: http://coders.talend.com
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
RE: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.
How about clover? It says free for open source project(http://www.atlassian.com/software/clover/pricing)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 5:57 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
>
>
> I have some experience with Emma not a whole lot to make a judgment right
> away but the following link has good comparison between Emma and
> Cobertura
> http://community.topcoder.com/tc?module=Static&d1=features&d2=03010
> 7 . It seems memory overhead for Emma is much smaller and is faster.
>
> Also on a similar note we should be probably looking at integrating static
> analysis like PMD or FindBugs?
>
> Comments?
>
> Animesh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 3:39 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
>
> +1 for cobertura
>
> I am biased towards reports and graphics for easy interpretation.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:03 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
>
> Hi all,
>
> Given our common agreement that we want to increase unit test coverage in
> the project, I started down the path of trying to get a coverage report
> generation process going. Then I realized I should ask the list if there is a
> preference for tools.
>
> Does anyone have a preference?
>
> I've looked at emma [1] and cobertura [2] so far.
>
> -chip
>
> [1]
> http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Cemma%7Cemma%7C2.1.5320%
> 7Cjar
> [2]
> http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Ccobertura%7Ccobertura%7C1.9r
> c1%7Cjar
RE: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
I have some experience with Emma not a whole lot to make a judgment right away but the following link has good comparison between Emma and Cobertura http://community.topcoder.com/tc?module=Static&d1=features&d2=030107 . It seems memory overhead for Emma is much smaller and is faster.
Also on a similar note we should be probably looking at integrating static analysis like PMD or FindBugs?
Comments?
Animesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 3:39 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
+1 for cobertura
I am biased towards reports and graphics for easy interpretation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:03 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
Hi all,
Given our common agreement that we want to increase unit test coverage in the project, I started down the path of trying to get a coverage report generation process going. Then I realized I should ask the list if there is a preference for tools.
Does anyone have a preference?
I've looked at emma [1] and cobertura [2] so far.
-chip
[1] http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Cemma%7Cemma%7C2.1.5320%7Cjar
[2] http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Ccobertura%7Ccobertura%7C1.9rc1%7Cjar
RE: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.
+1 for cobertura
I am biased towards reports and graphics for easy interpretation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:03 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
Hi all,
Given our common agreement that we want to increase unit test coverage
in the project, I started down the path of trying to get a coverage
report generation process going. Then I realized I should ask the
list if there is a preference for tools.
Does anyone have a preference?
I've looked at emma [1] and cobertura [2] so far.
-chip
[1] http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Cemma%7Cemma%7C2.1.5320%7Cjar
[2] http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Ccobertura%7Ccobertura%7C1.9rc1%7Cjar
Re: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Given our common agreement that we want to increase unit test coverage
> in the project, I started down the path of trying to get a coverage
> report generation process going. Then I realized I should ask the
> list if there is a preference for tools.
>
> Does anyone have a preference?
>
> I've looked at emma [1] and cobertura [2] so far.
>
> -chip
>
> [1] http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Cemma%7Cemma%7C2.1.5320%7Cjar
> [2] http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Ccobertura%7Ccobertura%7C1.9rc1%7Cjar
Thanks for the input folks. It looks like cobertura may be the best
bet, since it's available as a plugin on builds.a.o, as well as being
embedded in sonar.
Emma is pretty light weight, but doesn't look as active. Clover is
great too, but isn't actually open source itself (and therefore would
require going through some hoops to get it up and running).
-chip
Re: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
No preference
On 11/19/12 2:23 PM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Chip Childers
><ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Given our common agreement that we want to increase unit test coverage
>> in the project, I started down the path of trying to get a coverage
>> report generation process going. Then I realized I should ask the
>> list if there is a preference for tools.
>>
>> Does anyone have a preference?
>>
>> I've looked at emma [1] and cobertura [2] so far.
>
>
>No personal preference at all - but builds.a.o appears to have the
>cobertura report publishing plugin already.
>Also there is analysis.a.o - though it reports zero right now and
>hasn't been run recently.
>
>--David
Re: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Given our common agreement that we want to increase unit test coverage
> in the project, I started down the path of trying to get a coverage
> report generation process going. Then I realized I should ask the
> list if there is a preference for tools.
>
> Does anyone have a preference?
>
> I've looked at emma [1] and cobertura [2] so far.
No personal preference at all - but builds.a.o appears to have the
cobertura report publishing plugin already.
Also there is analysis.a.o - though it reports zero right now and
hasn't been run recently.
--David