hmmm.., then I'd rather go adding Ivy support to manage all dependencies (or even to a maven-based build). Will begin on this as soon as I can. Thx for the info on this :-)
regards, jp On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Janne Jalkanen <[email protected]>wrote: > > Nope. > > But what you can do is to make an ant task which downloads Cobertura and > the relevant JARs when you run "ant coverage-tests" or whatever. > > /Janne > > On 27 Jun 2012, at 01:11, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote: > > > Hi again, > > > > I was curious and have added the needed jars and the related ant task to > > see how JSPWiki is performing in terms of test coverage. I was about to > > commit the changes, but I'm not very sure if we can commit the Cobertura > > jar, as it is not clear to me if their license is AL-compatible or not > (by > > the way, if anybody is curious, I've uploaded the reports to [1]). > > > > Cobertura ant tasks are AL-licensed [2], but cobertura.jar contains both > > ant-tasks and Cobertura itself, which is GPL. Is it OK to commit this jar > > in tests/lib? Regarding asm-3.0.jar and asm-tree-3.0.jar, they seem OK > [3]. > > > > Also, following up with the coverage reports, I've also made the > appropiate > > task to let Sonar gather some statistics from JSPWiki. The point is, > Sonar > > is LGPL'ed, which means we can't add the Sonar ant tasks to the project, > > so, does it make sense to commit these build.xml changes? As I have them > > now, they assume that the Sonar ant tasks are placed inside $ANT_HOME/lib > > > > > > regards, > > juan pablo > > > > > > [1]: http://people.apache.org/~juanpablo/coverage_2.9.0-incubating-3 > > [2]: http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html > > [3]: http://asm.ow2.org/license.html > >
