Wow. You'd think they could at least put a notice on their website that it's unmaintained. I've been using it how long??? Over a year...
In theory, we should still be able to use it. We're using Java 6, which it supports. I've never had a single problem with it. However, if users compiled Log4j locally with Java 7 code coverage would cause all tests to fail, and that is not desirable. So, with that I rescind my suggestion. Really? Why on earth don't they have a notice on their website that it's no longer maintained??? Nick On May 29, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > I thought Emma was unmaintained since 2005? > http://sourceforge.net/projects/emma/files/ > > Gary > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Nick Williams > <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm actually going to go out on a limb here and say that we shouldn't use > either. > > I'm familiar with two code coverage tools, personally. IntelliJ IDEA coverage > (kind of free but doesn't support Maven) and Emma Coverage (free and supports > Maven). I've used Emma extensively. It's extremely accurate, and it's fast. I > note three projects below with approximate time with and without Emma: > > Project #1: 550 tests > Build time without Emma: ~3 minutes > Build time with Emma: ~4.5 minutes > > Project #2: 1176 tests > Build time without Emma: ~4.5 minutes > Build time with Emma: ~6.5 minutes > > Project #3: 3174 tests > Build time without Emma: ~ 14 minutes > Build time with Emma: ~ 18 minutes > > I'd highly recommend we go with Emma instead. It has a Maven plugin: > http://emma.sourceforge.net/plugins/index.html > > Nick > > On May 29, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> 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 >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >> Spring Batch in Action >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > JUnit in Action, Second Edition > Spring Batch in Action > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
