[seam-dev] Issues with testing and emma

[Jason Porter]

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 at gmail.com> 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 at gmail.com> 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 at gmail.com> 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 at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> seam-dev mailing list
> seam-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev