JOse,<br><br>Thanks for the tips. I look forward to your blog post. I was finally able to get 100% class showing, but still missing methods. I look forward to your blog post about jaoco.<br><br>John<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:30 PM, José Rodolfo Freitas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joserodolfo.freitas@gmail.com">joserodolfo.freitas@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
sure thing<br>
<br>
<a href="https://github.com/joserodolfofreitas/jacoco-integration-testcase" target="_blank">https://github.com/joserodolfofreitas/jacoco-integration-testcase</a><br>
<br>
I'm writting a blog post on reporting arquillian test coverage with<br>
sonar too, I'´ll probably publish it wednesday.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Jason Porter <<a href="http://lightguard.jp" target="_blank">lightguard.jp</a>@<a href="http://gmail.com" target="_blank">gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> José, would you point us to an example or send one over so the rest of the community can apply it, or apply it to the parent pom?<br>
><br>
> Sent from my iPhone<br>
><br>
> On Jul 4, 2011, at 8:17, José Rodolfo Freitas <<a href="mailto:joserodolfo.freitas@gmail.com">joserodolfo.freitas@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> ops, sorry,<br>
>> I hate typing with gloves.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> continuing...<br>
>><br>
>> I believe that the best approach in our case (using arquillian) would<br>
>> be jacoco which uses on the fly bytecode instrumentation.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:16 AM, José Rodolfo Freitas<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:joserodolfo.freitas@gmail.com">joserodolfo.freitas@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> Hi john, aslak provided us an extension to integrate arquillian with jacoco.<br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="https://github.com/arquillian/arquillian-extension-jacoco" target="_blank">https://github.com/arquillian/arquillian-extension-jacoco</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> we´ve been testing it and it´s working well.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Emma uses offline bytecode instrumentation, and this could be a really<br>
>>> hellish to analyzes coverage data over the container.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I believe that the best approach in our case (using arquillian) would be<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 9:19 AM, John D. Ament <<a href="mailto:john.d.ament@gmail.com">john.d.ament@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>> I just noticed this morning that emma reports very low code coverage on my<br>
>>>> code. However, when I switch the injection points from say "SomeBean" to<br>
>>>> "SomeBeanImpl" then my code coverage sudden jumps up. I expect it to be<br>
>>>> higher. It seems like Emma has some issues dealing with CDI proxies, or<br>
>>>> possibly arquillian. Has anyone else noticed this?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> John<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> seam-dev mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:seam-dev@lists.jboss.org">seam-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
>>>> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> seam-dev mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:seam-dev@lists.jboss.org">seam-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev</a><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>