Maven Cobertura and JaCoCo Plugins – What Are Your Rock Bottom, Minimum Standards?

When it comes to test driven development, the best line I’ve heard is the following.

Your clients are not a distributed test environment

These wise words where uttered by my Spring Core lecturer while covering the difference between unit and integration tests in Spring parlance. On the note of unit and integration tests, after working on a vast array of projects, it has dawned on me, with some sadness, that not a single project, organization or team I’ve been on has had non negotiable standards when it comes to code coverage. Of course, most projects have had unit testing as a part of a checklist, but not a single one has made a lasting effort to both measure and enforce a minimum goal in terms of code coverage.

In this post we take a look at potential rock bottom configurations for the free cobertura-maven-plugin in particular and also visit the jacoco-maven-plugin. Finally we encounter lacking JDK 8 support and start considering paying for a commercial plugin.

Before delving into code coverage tooling it’s worth asking why it matters, to whom, and what it means. So, what does code coverage mean? Why should software engineers care? Why should project managers care? Why should project sponsors care? If a consultancy (vendor) is doing the development, why should this organisation care? These are not questions we’ll delve into here in depth other than noting that coverage reports help detect code that had not been adequately tested by automated test suites.

No Standards? Introduce a Lower Quality Gate

So what to do in a world of little to no standards? In my mind the answer is to set one’s own personal standards, starting with defining what rock bottom is. This is a personal professional line in the sand. Its also a great question, when considering joining a project or organization, to ask of your prospective employer. The question would be what unit, integration and system test code coverage standards the organization has and then crucially how they are enforced and made visible to all concerned.

In terms of motivating the need to minimum standards, the term quality gate seems apt. On a given project, even personal project, one would have two gates, the lower gate would be enabled by default and builds will fail on developer machines if this minimum standard is not met, a CI server would also independently verify using the minimum standard. If this lower quality gate has not been met, the project manager or development manager should know about it.

The Plugins

Lets move onto the plugins. The cobertura-maven-plugin is used to report on and check your unit test code coverage using the Cobertura code coverage utility. So we’ll first check if all tests are passing and then check to make sure our standards have been met. Once we move onto the integration test phase, where our beans and infrastructure is tested in concert, the jacoco-maven-plugin will report on and check our integration test code coverage. 

The importance of performing both unit testing (individual classes) and integration testing (incorporating a container such as the Spring context) cannot be overstated. Both plugins and so both types of testing must be done in a given project and this stands to reason: we want coverage standards for individual classes as well as cooperating runtime services and ordinarily we only proceed to the latter once the former has succeeded as per the Maven Build Lifecycle.

Rock Bottom – Our Lower Quality Gate

It stands to reason that there some should be some correlation between the application domain and the amount of effort one will invest in unit and integration testing. When it comes to rock bottom however the application domain is irrelevant since it represents our bare minimum standard that is domain agnostic.

In terms of the merits of a rock bottom configuration for Cobertura and JaCoCo, the following IBM developerWorks sourced statement supports such an approach.

The main thing to understand about coverage reports is that they’re best used to expose code that hasn’t been adequately tested.

Cobertura

Defining a minimum standard when it comes to Cobertura, as it turns out, takes some effort when one considers the array of options one has to consider. For example the configuration below is the usage example provided on the official plugin page.

      <plugin>
        <groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId>
        <artifactId>cobertura-maven-plugin</artifactId>
        <version>2.6</version>
        <configuration>
          <check>
            <!-- Min branch coverage rate per class. 0 to 100. -->
            <branchRate>85</branchRate>
            <!-- Min line coverage rate per class. 0 to 100. -->
            <lineRate>85</lineRate>
            <haltOnFailure>true</haltOnFailure>
            <!-- Min branch coverage rate for project as a whole. -->
            <totalBranchRate>85</totalBranchRate>
            <!-- Min line coverage rate for project as a whole. -->
            <totalLineRate>85</totalLineRate>
            <!-- Min line coverage rate per package. -->
            <packageLineRate>85</packageLineRate>
            <!-- Min branch coverage rate per package. -->
            <packageBranchRate>85</packageBranchRate>
            <regexes>
              <!-- Package specific settings. -->
              <regex>
                <pattern>com.example.reallyimportant.*</pattern>
                <branchRate>90</branchRate>
                <lineRate>80</lineRate>
              </regex>
              <regex>
                <pattern>com.example.boringcode.*</pattern>
                <branchRate>40</branchRate>
                <lineRate>30</lineRate>
              </regex>
            </regexes>
          </check>
        </configuration>
        <executions>
          <execution>
            <goals>
              <goal>clean</goal>
              <goal>check</goal>
            </goals>
          </execution>
        </executions>
      </plugin>

The first question that comes to mind when it comes to the above is what the configuration means in the first place. The main concept we need is the difference between the line rate and branch rate, which has been neatly explained here. So, a potential starting point would be a 50% line coverage rate on a project wide basis as a rock bottom configuration with branch coverage excluded. Naturally we will halt on failure as a rule since this is our bare minimum standard and not necessarily what we will aspire to achieve.

			<plugin>
        		<groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId>
        		<artifactId>cobertura-maven-plugin</artifactId>
        		<version>2.5.2</version>
        		<configuration>
        			<instrumentedDirectory>target/cobertura/instrumented-classes</instrumentedDirectory>
          			<outputDirectory>target/cobertura/report</outputDirectory>
          			<check>
            			<haltOnFailure>true</haltOnFailure>
            			<totalLineRate>50</totalLineRate>
          			</check>
        		</configuration>
        		<executions>
          			 <execution>
                        <id>cobertura-clean</id>
                        <phase>clean</phase>
                        <goals>
                            <goal>clean</goal>
                        </goals>
                    </execution>
                    <execution>
                        <id>cobertura-instrument</id>
                        <phase>process-classes</phase>
                        <goals>
                            <goal>instrument</goal>
                        </goals>
                    </execution>
                    <execution>
                        <id>cobertura-verify</id>
                        <phase>verify</phase>
                        <goals>
                            <goal>check</goal>
                        </goals>
                    </execution>
        		</executions>
      		</plugin>

JaCoCo

When using JaCoCo to generate code coverage reports both that jacoco-maven-plugin and maven-failsafe-plugin must be configured as per this excellent resource.

<plugin>
    <groupId>org.jacoco</groupId>
    <artifactId>jacoco-maven-plugin</artifactId>
    <version>0.6.3.201306030806</version>
    <executions>
        <!-- The Executions required by unit tests are omitted. -->
        <!--
            Prepares the property pointing to the JaCoCo runtime agent which
            is passed as VM argument when Maven the Failsafe plugin is executed.
        -->
        <execution>
            <id>pre-integration-test</id>
            <phase>pre-integration-test</phase>
            <goals>
                <goal>prepare-agent</goal>
            </goals>
            <configuration>
                <!-- Sets the path to the file which contains the execution data. -->
                <destFile>${project.build.directory}/coverage-reports/jacoco-it.exec</destFile>
                <!--
                    Sets the name of the property containing the settings
                    for JaCoCo runtime agent.
                -->
                <propertyName>failsafeArgLine</propertyName>
            </configuration>
        </execution>
        <!--
            Ensures that the code coverage report for integration tests after
            integration tests have been run.
        -->
        <execution>
            <id>post-integration-test</id>
            <phase>post-integration-test</phase>
            <goals>
                <goal>report</goal>
            </goals>
            <configuration>
                <!-- Sets the path to the file which contains the execution data. -->
                <dataFile>${project.build.directory}/coverage-reports/jacoco-it.exec</dataFile>
                <!-- Sets the output directory for the code coverage report. -->
                <outputDirectory>${project.reporting.outputDirectory}/jacoco-it</outputDirectory>
            </configuration>
        </execution>
    </executions>
</plugin>

JDK 8 Support Lacking – Time To Look At Altassian Clover

While producing this post I had to abondon using both cited plugins and to start looking at Altassian Clover since the two cited free plugins do not support JDK 8 at present but Altassian Clover does. The latter does come with a $300 price tag, and that should be fine, it worth spending money on good development tools.

cobertura-maven-plugin issue log

Issue 1: cobertura-maven-plugin 2.6 gave incessant error, downgraded to 2.5.2 which made the error go away. Did not have the time for analysing the reasons for the failure.

Issue 2: Tests would not run with the mvn clean verify command, got incessant exceptions and bytecode on the console with the reason being “Expected stackmap frame at this location.” As it turns out this is was due to JDK 8 not being supported. Downgrading to JDK 7 was not an option for me, neither was spending time on understanding subtle new behaviours of JDK 7 .

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s