[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1399?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15873590#comment-15873590
]
Stas Levin edited comment on BEAM-1399 at 2/20/17 8:04 AM:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the tip [~dhalp...@google.com], I wasn't aware the
{{beam-sdks-java-javadoc}} module depended on all the other ones.
>From preliminary experiments, looks like {{report-aggregate}} aggregates
>reports across dependent modules, so that the resulting report is as if you
>had executed the regular {{report}} and merged them all together (visually).
In terms of coverage, I'm still seeing the 69% for {{beam-sdks-java-core}} both
when using {{report}} specifically for {{beam-sdks-java-core}} and
{{report-aggregate}} for the {{beam-sdks-java-javadoc}} module. This may
indicate that {{report-aggregate}} does not capture the additional
{{@RunnableOnService/@NeedsRunner}} tests we are after, at least not out-of-the
box.
In addition, test class coverage is not reported (neither by {{report}} nor by
{{report-aggregate}}), only production code ^2^.
Essentially we have the following major issues:
# Record coverage across modules
#* Might be possible using {{maven-antrun-plugin}} and/or copying {{.class}} /
{{.java}} files of dependent modules to {{beam-sdks-java-javadoc}}, as
described in ^1^.
# Report test class coverage
#* Might be possible using {{maven-antrun-plugin}} since it gives fine-grained
control over what's reported.
# Merge coverage provided by different executions of the same test class
#* As I dive deeper into this, I'm inclined to think that the
{{jacoco-maven-plugin}} does not support merging coverage for a test class
executed from different modules due to ^3^, which brings me back to separating
{{@RunnableOnService/@NeedsRunner}} into their own test classes and the rest of
the goodies behind curtain number (2) detailed in my first comment above.
1.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/jacoco/integration$20tests|sort:relevance/jacoco/_yuHGr_Kp6s/irM031B6KNAJ
2.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34483904/jacoco-maven-plugin-include-test-sources
3. http://www.eclemma.org/jacoco/trunk/doc/classids.html
was (Author: staslev):
Thanks for the tip [~dhalp...@google.com], I wasn't aware the
{{beam-sdks-java-javadoc}} module depended on all the other ones.
>From preliminary experiments, looks like {{report-aggregate}} aggregates
>reports across dependent modules, so that the resulting report is as if you
>had executed the regular {{report}} and merged them all together (visually).
In terms of coverage, I'm still seeing the 69% for {{beam-sdks-java-core}} both
when using {{report}} specifically for {{beam-sdks-java-core}} and
{{report-aggregate}} for the {{beam-sdks-java-javadoc}} module. This may
indicate that {{report-aggregate}} does not capture the additional
{{@RunnableOnService/@NeedsRunner}} tests we are after, at least not out-of-the
box.
In addition, test class coverage is not reported (neither by {{report}} nor by
{{report-aggregate}}), only production code ^2^.
Essentially we have the following major issues:
# Record coverage across modules
#* Might be possible using {{maven-antrun-plugin}} and/or copying {{.class}} /
{{.java}} files of dependent modules to {{beam-sdks-java-javadoc}}, as
described in ^1^.
# Report test class coverage
#* Might be possible using {{maven-antrun-plugin}} since it gives fine-grained
control over that's reported.
# Merge coverage provided by different executions of the same test class
#* As I dive deeper into this, I'm inclined to think that the
{{jacoco-maven-plugin}} does not support merging coverage for a test class
executed from different modules due to ^3^, which brings me back to separating
{{@RunnableOnService/@NeedsRunner}} into their own test classes and the rest of
the goodies behind curtain number (2) detailed in my first comment above.
1.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/jacoco/integration$20tests|sort:relevance/jacoco/_yuHGr_Kp6s/irM031B6KNAJ
2.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34483904/jacoco-maven-plugin-include-test-sources
3. http://www.eclemma.org/jacoco/trunk/doc/classids.html
> Code coverage numbers are not accurate
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: BEAM-1399
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1399
> Project: Beam
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: build-system, sdk-java-core, testing
> Reporter: Daniel Halperin
> Labels: newbie, starter
>
> We've started adding Java Code Coverage numbers to PRs using the jacoco
> plugin. However, we are getting very low coverage reported for things like
> the Java SDK core.
> My belief is that this is happening because we test the bulk of the SDK not
> in the SDK module , but in fact in the DirectRunner and other similar modules.
> JaCoCo has a {{report:aggregate}} target that might do the trick, but with a
> few minutes of playing with it I wasn't able to make it work satisfactorily.
> Basic work in https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1800
> This is a good "random improvement" issue for anyone to pick up.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
