Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of garydgregory@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOGo0VYavjyWVqyu++Wt6SSV96wGoAYM1pt9WMn-1ayhhTMb=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CACZkXPzN1qn0R3REq-mu7MoPqV+=KWnZv+DQi64PZ7hWf4o1NA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOGo0VYavjyWVqyu++Wt6SSV96wGoAYM1pt9WMn-1ayhhTMb=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 20:15:52 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CACZkXPzjhi3sW7fNMWkJOL=5ojXGq7bCRAcVDNm2JR-X8M1KuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [parent][all] JaCoCo vs. Cobertura
From: Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5299ab1dafa8004dd57959a

--bcaec5299ab1dafa8004dd57959a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:43 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22 May 2013 17:52, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi All:
> >
> > [parent] version 29 replaces Cobertura with Jacoco, the main reasoning
> from
> > the folks over at [math] being that Jacoco is very fast compared to
> > Cobertura. In the case of [math] it's hours vs. minutes.
> >
> > The problem is that Jacoco produces bogus results as I recently emailed
> > about the [io] component. The large portion of the code is reported with
> 0%
> > coverage which is completely wrong. This is apparently a known issue due
> to
> > the Jacoco use of 'probes' to analyze code which is not compatible with
> the
> > use of exceptions.
> >
> > If you get the latest from [io] and edit the POM to enable JaCoC, you can
> > compare both reports in the generated site with 'mvn clean site'.
> >
> > Fast and bogus is not better than slow and right.
> >
> > I propose we switch [parent] back to Cobertura until a better alternative
> > is proposed. [math] can decide if it can live with the fast and bad
> results
> > provided by Jacoco.
>
> Why not include both as options, so components can choose?
>

Sure, why not, it would be nice to be able to run both for the same report
set to see the differences.

Gary

>
> I'm currently experimenting with profiles to see if this can be done
> easily.
>
> > Gary
> >
> > --
> > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<
> http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

--bcaec5299ab1dafa8004dd57959a--