Hello Benoit,
Kevin is right, using slf4j[0] one would use sth. like:
logger.debug(“blah {} in the loop that contains {}”, i, max);
No need for iffing :-).
[0] http://www.slf4j.org/manual.html
Regards Mirko
--
http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/
https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/ (http://osrc.dfm.io/mfriedenhagen)
https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Kevin Krumwiede <kjk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It does matter which implementation. The main reason it was recommended to
> check the logging level was because string concatenation can be expensive,
> and you want to avoid doing it for a message that won't be logged. But if
> you're using a logging API like slf4j that uses parameter replacement
> tokens in the message string, if the message isn't logged, the replacement
> won't be performed and the call will be cheap.
> On Feb 12, 2014 1:57 PM, "Benoît Berthonneau" <ben...@berthonneau.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't think that I could play with exclusions. Here is an example :
>>
>>
>>
>> *A Unit Test :*
>>
>>
>>
>> *The tested class with ALL traces activated:*
>>
>>
>>
>> *And the same tested class with INFO traces activated:*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : paulus.benedic...@gmail.com [mailto:paulus.benedic...@gmail.com] De
>> la part de Paul Benedict
>> Envoyé : mercredi 12 février 2014 21:36
>> À : Maven Users List
>> Objet : Re: Code coverage with debug logs: 100% branch coverage not
>> possible?...
>>
>>
>>
>> IIRC, there should be an option in Emma/Cobertura that allows you to
>> exclude coverage on certain classes. So if you can exclude your log4j
>> classes (you don't really want to test your logging, do you?), then you
>> should be able to raise your percentage.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Benoît Berthonneau
>>
>> <ben...@berthonneau.com>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Hi all,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I need your opinion/way to tackle the following problem:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > In many projects we use a Logger (doesn't matter which
>>
>> > implementation). It is often recommend to test if the debug level is
>>
>> > activated before logging a debug trace like the following:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > if (logger.isDebugEnabled()) {
>>
>> >
>>
>> > logger.debug("blah " + i + " in the loop that contains " + max);
>>
>> >
>>
>> > }
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Now when you run unit tests on this kind of code you need to make a
>> choice:
>>
>> > run tests with INFO level or run tests with ALL traces activated. I
>>
>> > choose the second option in order to:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > * Check that debug traces doesn't throw unwanted exception (like
>>
>> > NPE)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > * Have a better code coverage in term of covered lines
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > But in term of branches coverage we could never have a 100% :(
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > To me the only way to cover this is to run the tests suite 2 times:
>>
>> > one with INFO traces configured, and another one with ALL traces
>>
>> > activated.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Did you face this issue and how did you solve it ?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Thanks,
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Benoît.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Paul
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
