ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephane Bailliez <sbaill...@imediation.com>
Subject RE: [AUDIT] static analysis results
Date Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:11:35 GMT
From:     Eric Hancock <eric@bitpuddle.com>

>One other tool to consider is Parasoft's JTest.  It does similar static 
>code analysis (which I think is the most useful part of the tool) as 
>well as dynamic whitebox-type testing.  The static tests have proved 
>quite helpful to me.  In lieu of a line-by-line review of every source 
>file, JTest gives me some confidence that nothing really crazy lurks 
>within.

>I'd be happy to run JTest against the ant codebase and post the results 
>somewhere.  I must admit, though, that the Webgain / QA results are 
>prettier.

They did not improve the report with time.
I submitted the idea of XML reporting more than a year and a half to
Parasoft when I exposed my nightly build requirements. I was amazed by how
poor were the reporting features for the price.

Parasoft was definitely too expensive for this purpose and integration would
have been more painful. I also absolutely did not like the pressure to buy
the tool.
They were reluctent to even give me a 3-day evaluation and we were speaking
about a $20,000 figure.

JTest developer version is way too expensive for the features (one class at
a time), the learning curve is somewhat consequent if you use the dynamic
features.
About the 'project' version, it is damn expensive.

Out of curiosity how much did you pay for JTest ?

Stephane

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message