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.
ant run-tests at the top level has broken metrics on framework/base, everything else is fine. ant tests run in framework/base gives correct metrics on framework/base, but nothing else, obviously. > 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? Don't know on this.
