commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From luc <>
Subject Re: [Math] Request for future releases: kill Cobertura
Date Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:47:55 GMT
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 
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 
performances with respect to Bobyqa tests. It really takes hours to 
all site generation. Gilles spoke about 4 hours on a fast machine, but 
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 
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 

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.

best regards,

> Phil
>> Regards,
>> Gilles
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message