[ cobertura-Feature Requests-2073298 ] Better FAQ entry on EMMA

[SourceForge.net <no...@so...>]

Feature Requests item #2073298, was opened at 2008-08-25 09:49
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=2073298&group_id=130558

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Better FAQ entry on EMMA

Initial Comment:
I think it is worth noting that EMMA does not check branch coverage but basic block coverage, e.g. if you have an if statement that always evaluates to true in your tests, then you'll see that you have not tested false in cobertura but not in EMMA.

While this is a major drawback, EMMA is very fast! It allows instrumentation by the class loader, i.e. on the fly. This is especially useful from within an IDE. It is really cool to use EclEMMA, an EMMA plugin for Eclipse. You can directly start your coverage as a new launch type and see the coverage within the code editor!!!

This would be reeeeeealy cool for cobertura to have as well, but this is not what I'm asking for here. I just think that it would be helpful to have a more detailled comment in the FAQs. Someone might want to use both tools, one while writing code and one while integration building.


Kind regards!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=2073298&group_id=130558