I have some experience with Emma not a whole lot to make a judgment right away but the following link has good comparison between Emma and Cobertura http://community.topcoder.com/tc?module=Static&d1=features&d2=030107 . It seems memory overhead for Emma is much smaller and is faster.
Also on a similar note we should be probably looking at integrating static analysis like PMD or FindBugs? Comments? Animesh -----Original Message----- From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 3:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool? +1 for cobertura I am biased towards reports and graphics for easy interpretation. -----Original Message----- From: Chip Childers [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool? Hi all, Given our common agreement that we want to increase unit test coverage in the project, I started down the path of trying to get a coverage report generation process going. Then I realized I should ask the list if there is a preference for tools. Does anyone have a preference? I've looked at emma [1] and cobertura [2] so far. -chip [1] http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Cemma%7Cemma%7C2.1.5320%7Cjar [2] http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Ccobertura%7Ccobertura%7C1.9rc1%7Cjar
