Re: [seam-dev] Issues with testing and emma

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? Sent from my iPhone On Jul 4, 2011, at 8:17, José Rodolfo Freitas <joserodolfo.freitas(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > ops, sorry, > I hate typing with gloves. > > > continuing... > > I believe that the best approach in our case (using arquillian) would > be jacoco which uses on the fly bytecode instrumentation. > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:16 AM, José Rodolfo Freitas > <joserodolfo.freitas(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> Hi john, aslak provided us an extension to integrate arquillian with jacoco. >> >> https://github.com/arquillian/arquillian-extension-jacoco >> >> we´ve been testing it and it´s working well. >> >> Emma uses offline bytecode instrumentation, and this could be a really >> hellish to analyzes coverage data over the container. >> >> I believe that the best approach in our case (using arquillian) would be >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 9:19 AM, John D. Ament <john.d.ament(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> I just noticed this morning that emma reports very low code coverage on my >>> code.  However, when I switch the injection points from say "SomeBean" to >>> "SomeBeanImpl" then my code coverage sudden jumps up.  I expect it to be >>> higher.  It seems like Emma has some issues dealing with CDI proxies, or >>> possibly arquillian.  Has anyone else noticed this? >>> >>> John >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> seam-dev mailing list >>> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > seam-dev mailing list > seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev