On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Nick Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > 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???
Because... its not maintained ;) Anyway +1 on slow + right. > > 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 > > -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
