-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/15947/#review30972
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


Ship It!

- Sean Busbey


On Dec. 16, 2013, 4:32 p.m., Bill Havanki wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/15947/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 16, 2013, 4:32 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for accumulo.
> 
> 
> Bugs: ACCUMULO-1944
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1944
> 
> 
> Repository: accumulo
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The -C flag for test/system/auto/run.py did not work. This changeset allows 
> it to work again if a functional Cobertura installation is placed under 
> $ACCUMULO_HOME/lib/test/cobertura.
> 
> The code for producing instrumented Accumulo code was inactive and out of 
> date. It was reworked so that, if -C is passed, the Accumulo JARs are 
> instrumented and placed into a location ahead of their standard location in 
> the test classpath. (If -C is not passed, any instrumented JARs are removed.) 
> The classpath is also dynamically adjusted to include whatever Cobertura JAR 
> is available; its name includes a version number (as of 2.0.x).
> 
> The command-line scripts shipped with Cobertura 2.0.x are out of date and do 
> not work out of the box. Pull request #102 was submitted to 
> cobertura/cobertura on Github to fix the problem; in lieu of that, the 
> scripts must be manually updated to use a correct classpath.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   test/system/auto/TestUtils.py f6eca67 
>   test/system/auto/run.py 8e1a9bb 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15947/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Ran simple and stress functional tests on 1.4.5-SNAPSHOT, both with and 
> without -C. Verified that coverage reports are generated.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill Havanki
> 
>

Reply via email to