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 > >

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

JOse, 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. John On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:30 PM, José Rodolfo Freitas <joserodolfo.freitas(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > sure thing > > https://github.com/joserodolfofreitas/jacoco-integration-testcase > > I'm writting a blog post on reporting arquillian test coverage with > sonar too, I'´ll probably publish it wednesday. > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Jason Porter <lightguard.jp(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > > 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 > >