RFC: JMC-5657: Code coverage with Jacoco
almacdon at redhat.com
Wed May 22 14:58:43 UTC 2019
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:43 AM Alex Macdonald <almacdon at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Carmine,
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 2:27 PM Carmine Vincenzo Russo <carusso at redhat.com>
>> Hi Guru,
>> thanks for your reply.
>> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 6:38 PM Guru <guru.hb at oracle.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Carmine,
>> > Please check my comments inline.
>> > Thanks,
>> > Guru
>> > > On 07-May-2019, at 2:05 PM, Carmine Vincenzo Russo <
>> carusso at redhat.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hello everyone,
>> > >
>> > > This patch adds Jacoco coverage over unit test in JMC.
>> > > The module covered in particular are: /core/tests and
>> > >
>> > > The patch addresses the issue JMC-5657, but as noted by Klara
>> > > instead of adding Jcov, it's better to add Jacoco.
>> > >
>> > > For the time being, each test group had a new module, report, where an
>> > > aggregate-report can be found.
>> > > You need to run 'mvn verify' in jmc root for /application/tests and in
>> > > /core for /core/tests to have the coverage report.
>> > Logically there are three build step
>> > 1. For releng
>> > 2. Core modules
>> > 3. Jmc product (i.e Application)
>> > Ideally `mvn verify` is run on ~/jmc/core (for step 2) and ~/jmc (for
>> > 3).
>> Obviously all the 3 steps are needed, I also checked, the 'mvn verify' for
>> ~/jmc/core is automatically done while building the core modules on step
>> For jmc product you still need to run 'mvn verify -P uitests' separately
>> after building the project since you need the test to be executed.
>> Unless there is restriction on defining Jacoco in root of
>> > ~/jmc/core/pom.xml and ~/jmc/pom.xml.
>> I explain this at the end.
>> > > There are also some aspects that concern me, so: Is this what we are
>> > > looking for?
>> > > The report for /core looks good and clean. The report for
>> > > /application/tests has good results, although there are some 0%,
>> > and
>> > > that is ok, but also some N/A. Should we keep the modules in the
>> > > with only N/A?
>> > >
>> > > There are also some changes in /application/uitests when reading the
>> > patch,
>> > > they are not yet applied but I would like to add them to the next
>> > Please file a follow on new JBS and link with old one (relates to
>> > JMC-5667).
>> With 'next patch' I just meant the updated patch after the RFC, basically
>> what I have done now, just wanted to have your opinions before going
>> forward with the ~/uitests coverage. If a follow up issue is needed, I'll
>> ask Alex to open it.
>> > > This brings me to my second concern: should the tests and uitests in
>> > > /application have a unique report or should I keep them separate?
>> > Good to have Unique rather than separate.
>> In the new patch attached ~/jmc/application/tests and
>> ~/jmc/applciation/uitests have a unique coverage in
>> > > Lastly, do we want coverage with every verify build or do we want a
>> > > profile/flag to have the coverage only in some occasions?
>> > This could be based on how much time Jacoco Code coverage takes. If its
>> > negligible then good to have on every verify build or with a
>> In all my tests and attempts the module itself never took more than 10s,
>> while the build doesn't seem to be affected. So basically I don't think
>> it's a problem to have always the coverage in every build.
> I took a quick look into this and ran `mvn verify` locally with and
> without the coverage patch, I saw:
> With Coverage:
> core - 1 minute 17 seconds
> jmc - 8 minutes 51 seconds
> Without Coverage:
> core - 1 minute 3 seconds
> jmc - 8 minutes 23 seconds
>> > > Overall, how does the patch look like? Do you think there are some
>> > > modules that need to be covered? And do you have any suggestions on
>> > to
>> > > improve what I've done?
>> > If possible, please update the patch to ~/jmc/core/pom.xml and
>> > ~/jmc/pom.xml.
>> As far as my knowledge goes, to have the report, we need a separate
>> for the report, this because the report-aggregate relies on
>> and not on <module>, even the JaCoCo examples for this have their own
>> report module. The best way, I think, is the current situation in which
>> we have ~/jmc/core/coverage/pom.xml and
>> these generate and contains the coverage report, while in
>> ~/jmc/core/pom.xml and ~/jmc/application/pom.xml we have the JaCoCo agent
>> that makes the coverage possible. If we try to move everything in
>> ~/jmc/application/pom.xml and ~/jmc/core/pom.xml the reports will be
>> segregated in their own modules. Or if we try to move part of it in
>> ~/jmc/pom.xml we stiil need to have both the agent configuration in
>> ~/jmc/application/pom.xml and ~/jmc/core/pom.xml and the coverage as
>> separate modules.
> The aggregation of the coverage reports looks like it will require it's
> own pom.xml, as exemplified in a sample demo from the JaCoCo github.
>> All the changes and the new addition can be found here:
> - <module>report</module> is commented out
> Overall I think the patch looks good. I would however like to see the
> .hgignore and .gitignore updated to exclude the coverage reports; there are
> a lot of files generated in */coverage/coverage-report/*.
Whoops, spoke a tad too soon.
It's having difficulties at the moment when running uitests.
There's also comments in the application/coverage/pom.xml for the update
sites and RCP product.
>  https://www.jacoco.org/jacoco/trunk/doc/report-aggregate-mojo.html
> > Thanks,
> > > Carmine
> > >
> > >  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JMC-5657
> > > 
> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jmc-dev/2019-March/000882.html
> > >  https://imgur.com/hPyyLsQ
> > >  https://imgur.com/fqdzGvH
> > >  https://imgur.com/ozqNcAB
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carmine Vincenzo Russo
> > > <5657-0.patch>
> Carmine Vincenzo Russo
More information about the jmc-dev