Robert Morley wrote: > On Apr 8, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >> >> You misunderstand. The classes are marked 100% covered, but that is >> the problem. They are *not* 100% covered. The bug is that the double >> class loaders are writing to the same cobertura.dat file, and the >> first classloader, that contains framework/base code, gets corrupted >> output. >> >> You loading framework/base as a component, so it's testdef files can >> be run, will not solve the actual problem, of the double classloaders, >> and 2 cobertura instances. >> >> Without loading any of the framework/base tests, we should still get >> correct coverage values on base, just because it happens to be called >> by everything else in the system. But we don't, the numbers are wrong. > > I see your point -- how about this, we put these fixes in which will > accomplish at the very least ensuring that the base unit testers are > getting exercised. I can create another JIRA ticket to handle the two > class loaders / cobertura.dat file issue. Once the patch is ready we > can look it over with an eye towards any adverse affects.
I'd rather fix the duplicate classloader/cobertura thing first, then apply whatever changes you come up with after that. Otherwise, it might be harder to fix if we do this current thread first.
