How about clover? It says free for open source project(http://www.atlassian.com/software/clover/pricing)
> -----Original Message----- > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 5:57 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool? > > > 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=03010 > 7 . 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:sudha.ponnaga...@citrix.com] > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 3:39 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > 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:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:03 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > 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%7C1.9r > c1%7Cjar
