[jbosstools-dev] Introducing jacoco.exec files on Hudson: easy-to-use coverage results

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

any reason why you keep kicking of the mailing list ? :)

>>> We disable jacoco because emma and jacoco may cause test failures when running together (conflictual instrumentations probably).
>>> Before, jacoco without emma was what happened by default (hudson was jacoco + emma). I just disabled jacoco; but I can wrap it into a profile if you want. But I am not sure it will make it more used/helpful if we have to trigger it and ensure we don't have jacoco and emma at the same time.
>>> 
>> can't coverage just be -Pcoverage and then have a property that decides which is used ?
>> 
>> -Pcoverage runs jacoco by default
>> -Pcoverage -Demma switches it to emma and is what is used in hudson/jenkins until we got reporting up and running ?
>> 
> emma and jacoco are very distinct.
> What would you think of -Pcoverage-emma and -Pcoverage-jacoco?

I would then choose -Pcoverage and -Pcoverage-emma.

>> And at least Denis and I do look at coverage from time to time.

> Cool, and what do you look at exactly?

> the jacoco.exec file generated by hudson builds, or the emma reports in hudson jobs?

the reports to see where things are bad/good - haven't had time to try out jacoco loading (and its also tricky since need the exact same .class files to load it properly)

> I guess you would be fine with Emma reports, and delay real usage of Jacoco to the day it will have reports in hudson (or on sonar.jboss.org, but I bet it will appear after a good jacoco/jenkins report plugin).
> It seems to be impossible (at least for some projects - namely VPE and JSF) to get jacoco.exec and emma reports at the same time.
> 
> We have to keep Emma currently, so if you are happy with it, it is not useful to maintain jacoco usage until we use it to fully replace Emma.

I would prefer we push jacoco as much as possible for QE and local usage over Emma.

/max