[ 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)