I looked at sonar data few weeks ago and some of the critical issues can be looked at and that is useful data. As we are early stages of releases, fixing these issues is taking lower priority. I would vote to continue with it.
Regarding unit test coverage, I think the coverage is too low at this point. It doesn't hurt to implement coverage tool but data might not be that useful. If we have some external goal and if we run the tool once that goal is met, data can be used to improve coverage. -----Original Message----- From: Olivier Lamy [mailto:ol...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 3:06 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Preference for a JUnit Coverage Tool? you can have a look at jacoco too: http://www.eclemma.org/jacoco/index.html Note, I didn't maintained very well the sonar part (https://analysis.apache.org) which is not really up2date. Do we continue using that or not ? 2012/11/19 Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>: > Hi all, > > Given our common agreement that we want to increase unit test coverage > in the project, I started down the path of trying to get a coverage > report generation process going. Then I realized I should ask the > list if there is a preference for tools. > > Does anyone have a preference? > > I've looked at emma [1] and cobertura [2] so far. > > -chip > > [1] > http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Cemma%7Cemma%7C2.1.5320%7Cja > r [2] > http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Ccobertura%7Ccobertura%7C1.9 > rc1%7Cjar -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
