I've asked because there seems to be a number of more or less important
issues, very small number of issues has been resolved in last
year<http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&pid=11226&status=5&status=6&updated:previous=-52w&sorter/field=updated&sorter/order=DESC>,
even tho at least some of the issues have high vote count and/or have
patches from the community, like this
one<http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MCOBERTURA-86>I'm currently most
interested in where I'm proposing a new
cobertura:report-only mojo to be added - currentl one can generate report
only through cobertura:cobertura mojo which executes test phase in cobertura
lifecycle so tests in integration-test phase do not get run; with
cobertura:report-only mojo user has responsibility to instrument code and
execute tests in whichever phase (s)he chooses.

About aggregating coverage results in a multimodule project, isn't it enough
to

   - resolve this <http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MCOBERTURA-33> very long
   standing issue, by implementing support for cobertura:merge mojo & task;
   - have users configure cobertura:instrument mojo at parent and thus
   inherited by every child;
   - implement some new cobertura:aggregate report mojo which would (like
   report-only mojo bind to validate phase and) just call merge task before
   generating report for a parent project only?


Regards,
Stevo.

2009/4/29 Stephen Connolly <[email protected]>

> My understanding is that there is an issue with aggregating coverage
> results for a multi-module project and forking the build...
>
> Clover faces the same issue but is farther down the road, and it looks like
> there is no good solution for Maven 2.x (i.e. need the build plan stuff from
> 3.x)
>
> The Cobertura plugin seems to work fine otherwise, why would it need a new
> release?
>
> -Stephen
>
> 2009/4/29 Stevo Slavić <[email protected]>
>
> Hello Codehaus Mojo Users,
>>
>> Are there any active Cobertura Maven Plug-in developers? Project appears
>> to be dead...
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stevo.
>>
>
>

Reply via email to