Seems I’m getting better numbers from Clover/Openclover for our projects (quite
a bit better numbers!), however, it fails on one of our modules with an obscure
message:
FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.
* What went wrong:
Execution failed for task ':icd-common:test'.
> java.lang.reflect.GenericSignatureFormatError: Signature Parse error: Failure
> to make progress!
Remaining input:
.TradeTransaction:Ltradeticket/TradeTransaction;>(Ljava/util/Set<Ltradeticket/TradeTransaction;>;Ljava/lang/Integer;)Ljava/util/Set<Ltradeticket/TradeTransaction;>;
* Try:
Run with --stacktrace option to get the stack trace. Run with --info or --debug
option to get more log output.
From: Sean Leblanc <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:45 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Scott Hickey
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Code coverage tools?
What does the forcedModules do?
From: "Corum, Michael" <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, June 21, 2019 at 5:43 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Scott Hickey
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Code coverage tools?
Actually in my case, @CompileStatic helped improve accuracy of coverage for
Cobertura. For Groovy/Dropwizard, I using this in my build.gradle:
Plugins {
id "net.saliman.cobertura" version "2.5.4"
}
And then later in my build.gradle, I also include:
configurations.all {
resolutionStrategy {
forcedModules = ['org.ow2.asm:asm:5.0.3', 'org.ow2.asm:asm-tree:5.0.3',
'org.ow2.asm:asm-commons:5.0.3', 'org.ow2.asm:asm-util:5.0.3',
'org.ow2.asm:asm-analysis:5.0.3']
}
}
I probably need to update the versions on those but that helped the accuracy
for Cobertura quite a bit.
Michael Corum
VP, Technical Architecture Solutions
RGA Reinsurance Company
16600 Swingley Ridge Road
Chesterfield, Missouri 6301701706
T 636.736.7066
www.rgare.com
From: Søren Berg Glasius <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, June 21, 2019 at 1:04 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Scott Hickey
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Code coverage tools?
External e-mail. Use caution! / Courriel externe. Faites attention!
________________________________
@Scott Hickey<mailto:[email protected]> but can you make it work with
@CompileStatic and the Elvis operator? We are having big struggles to get that
working. (In a Grails 3.3.x application)
Best regards / Med venlig hilsen,
Søren Berg Glasius
Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark
Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Skype: sbglasius
--- Press ESC once to quit - twice to save the changes.
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 00:31, Scott Hickey
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
We are using Clover - it is open source now. We have found it works much better
for us at Mutual of Omaha than JaCoCo or Cobertura.
Scott Hickey
Mutual of Omaha
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 12:02 PM Sean LeBlanc
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
What are people using currently to get accurate code coverage from new(ish)
versions of Groovy? We are on 2.4.10 and I see similar issues as what this
thread is talking about:
https://github.com/cobertura/cobertura/issues/184<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_cobertura_cobertura_issues_184&d=DwMFaQ&c=5uPv0lijNz76uSeaN5P0Zw&r=rh3Qrw7azSI9xkZZ-a8EEw&m=p4nbyKOuvpOHHXv6u3ddQHdcrJqAeyq5xSfJhWp1BOc&s=VyqZbdEQzSqkh0b0fC9LKCqP6likq_eHkVjwWCHpmws&e=>
Does anyone have good experiences with getting more accurate code coverage
numbers with Groovy > 2.0.8? And what route did you take?
** EXTERNAL **
________________________________
** EXTERNAL **
________________________________
