Not to Pierre, but ugly and broken? How so? Please expand with
concrete issues.
ps: I'm the original integrator of cobertura into ofbiz.
pps: I have a local branch that converted ofbiz to maven, and actually
produced a runnable output. Should I revive that?
On 05/26/2016 07:54 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
+1 as it never got off the ground properly. We can always revisit later
when desire to do so rises again.
I use Sonar, but that is another subject.
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services
OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello everyone,
As part of the refactoring process, I suggest to completely remove
cobertura and sonar from the framework. My proposal is based on the
following:
- The startup logic is more complex because of the existence of legacy
classes (Instrumenter, InstrumenterWorker, etc ...).
- No one (AFAIK) is actively using cobertura or sonar, and the targets in
build.xml are actually broken
- The way cobertura is integrated with ofbiz is poor and ugly
- Before integrating cobertura, ofbiz first needs a better testing
framework that allows for TDD and red-green-refactor. Otherwise, this whole
issue with test coverage is a moot point
- Too much complexity and legacy code in build.xml, common.xml, ivy.xml,
macros.xml and others. It's just really ugly
All the code that I saw for cobertura is just ugly and broken. Now it's
perfectly fine to reintroduce cobertura cleanly in the future, but I would
not use the existing code anyway, I would just wipe it all out and start
fresh.
I'm not sure whether we need to vote on this? Appreciate your feedback.
Taher Alkhateeb
