[seam-dev] Issues with testing and emma

[José Rodolfo Freitas]

John,
here you have the post I mentioned before:

http://techblog.joserodolfo.com/2011/07/arquillian-coverage-tests-reported-with-sonar-howto/

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 9:49 PM, John D. Ament <john.d.ament at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 at gmail.com> 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 at gmail.com>
>> 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 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
>> >
>
>