The Commons Math folks want to run JaCoCo because it is much faster for them than Cobertura (hours vs. minutes according to them). The problem is that JaCoCo reports 0% code coverage in certain cases and this is a documented issue that does not look easy to fix. So in my mind, slow and right is better than fast and wrong.
Gary On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]>wrote: > I didn't follow the conversation on the Commons list. What advantage(s) > does JaCoCo have over Cobertura? Is there a need to run both or could we > just standardize on one of them. I believe the Cobertura plugin runs > during the site build so if JaCoCo was the same I'm not sure why we would > need a toggle, unless we only wanted to run a code coverage report. > > Ralph > > On May 28, 2013, at 6:14 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > Author: ggregory > > Date: Wed May 29 01:14:18 2013 > > New Revision: 1487179 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1487179 > > Log: > > Enable code coverage. A comment in the POMs used to say this was broken > with the 2.2 Cobertura plugin, but it works just fine with 2.5.2. To > consider: Should we do like Apache Commons and provide a toggle to run > JaCoCo too? > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
