On 6/04/2010, at 11:59 AM, Robert Morley wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > >> Bob Morley wrote: >>> >>> Here is my question -- when looking at the reports it showed 100% line code >>> coverage in UtilValidate (for example) but this was for 111 lines. Clearly >>> this class has many more lines than that, and when I opened it up I saw that >>> large portions of it were not marked green or red in the report. What >>> gives? :) >> >> >> Coverage in framework/base sucks when running run-tests at the >> top-level. There are overlapping classloaders, and this confuses >> cobertura. >> >> Running component tests directly in framework/base, doing 'ant tests' >> does give correct coverage metrics. > > Does this only apply to framework/base? When I looked at coverage of > UtilAccounting (for example) it looks pretty accurate. > > Also, we were talking in the office -- our understanding is that the > Cobertura license would restrict Ofbiz from redistribution, but it should be > able to use it as part of their build process. Do you think there would be > an issue include a target that downloads and deploys Cobertura and executes > those targets as part of our build process internally? That way we could get > these metrics published as we move forward. (Naturally we would have to fix > the issue referred to above. Thoughts?
A target to download it should be fine and an optional dependency on it should also be fine, but I don't think it's okay to make it a required part of the build process even if the jar isn't being distributed with OFBiz. Regards Scott
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
