commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benedikt Ritter <>
Subject Re: [Math] Request for future releases: kill Cobertura
Date Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:05:54 GMT
2012/12/20 luc <>

> Le 2012-12-20 15:01, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>  On 12/19/12 6:19 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>>> Hello.
> Hi all,
>>> The situation with "Cobertura" is fairly annoying, perhaps particularly
>>> so
>>> for Commons Math because of the size of the code base (and thus the
>>> fairly
>>> large number of unit tests).
>>> As it just happened, a few minor problems have now delayed the release by
>>> several days because I have to wait about 4 hours for the site generation
>>> to complete (on a _fast_ machine).
>>> Hence the request to remove Cobertura from the "site" target, or at least
>>> from the "site:stage-deploy" step, so that a new vote can take place as
>>> soon
>>> as a problem is fixed.
>>> [I would even argue that it is not that useful to include Cobertura in
>>> the
>>> release process because the amount of code coverage is not acted upon
>>> (i.e.
>>> low coverage would not block a release IIUC).]
>>> Do you agree?
>> +1
>>> If so, can we change that for Commons Math only, or should this be done
>>> at
>>> the "parent" level? Is is just a matter of adding
>>>   <cobertura.skip>true</**cobertura.skip>
>>> in a new profile?
>> This is an argument that we have from time to time.  IMO the parent
>> should contain a minimal set of plugins and component POMs should
>> explicitly include the ones they want.  I would be +1 for dropping
>> Coberta from the parent pom.
> I will play devils advocate. Cobertura is really useful and provides useful
> information. It also clearly help popularizing [math] as we can prove it is
> a well tested component. So I don't agree removing it totally.
> However, I agree it has become really annoying mainly due to its very poor
> performances with respect to Bobyqa tests. It really takes hours to perform
> all site generation. Gilles spoke about 4 hours on a fast machine, but my
> home computer is not fast and it takes much longer to me. When I want to do
> a full generation, I let it run overnight.
> So if another mean to have the same information is available (or to make
> cobertura run faster, especially for the bobyqa test), then I would
> be glad to drop cobertura. If there are no other means, I would not be
> glad.
> I would prefer than the output from the test coverage would end up in the
> public
> site. Even if only the current trunk is covered, that would be sufficient
> for
> my needs, so if some existing continuous integration system can be set up,
> I'm
> fine with that. Note that we really need to get information down to line
> of code
> level, as it is the only way we can extend tests. The cobertura report is
> really
> nice for that as it directly provides colored versions of the source code
> which
> are really easy to use for the developer.

Hi Luc,

have a look at the test installation Oliver has set up:, for example have a
look at the org.apache.commons.lang3.builder package:
If you click on one of the magnifying glasses on the right side, you get a
detailed view of a particular class. Click on the Coverage tab in the top
right side and you will have the coverage displayed like in Cobertura.


> best regards,
> Luc
>> Phil
>>> Regards,
>>> Gilles
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>> ---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**<>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**<>
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**<>
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message