incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?
Date Tue, 20 Nov 2012 01:57:21 GMT

I have some experience with Emma not a whole lot to make a judgment right away but the following
link has good comparison between Emma and Cobertura http://community.topcoder.com/tc?module=Static&d1=features&d2=030107
. It seems memory overhead for Emma is much smaller and is faster. 

Also on a similar note we should be probably looking at integrating static analysis like PMD
or FindBugs?

Comments?

Animesh

-----Original Message-----
From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 3:39 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?

+1 for cobertura

I am biased towards reports and graphics for easy interpretation.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:03 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool?

Hi all,

Given our common agreement that we want to increase unit test coverage in the project, I started
down the path of trying to get a coverage report generation process going.  Then I realized
I should ask the list if there is a preference for tools.

Does anyone have a preference?

I've looked at emma [1] and cobertura [2] so far.

-chip

[1] http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Cemma%7Cemma%7C2.1.5320%7Cjar
[2] http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Ccobertura%7Ccobertura%7C1.9rc1%7Cjar

Mime
View raw message