The Disco Blog Welcome Guest | Login or Register

Because it’s my bag, I pointed out recently that copasetic coverage tools (like Cobertura) can inadvertently hide defects by reporting specific lines of code as covered. But, while I often use Cobertura in my examples, I have found that Emma is fairly smart in its reporting of code coverage values. As such, I often find myself running both hip tools for projects.

For example, the same branchIt method from my previous posting is displayed slightly different in Emma as shown below. Specifically, note line 10– it’s colored yellow in an attempt to show that not all conditions of the conditional were executed.

(Click the picture to view a larger version)

While Emma probably reports coverage more accurately (note, it reports block coverage), I still find Cobertura’s reports more aesthetically pleasing. In truth, I’m a firm believer that coverage reports are more effective at telling you what’s not covered; accordingly, both tools are quite accurate in this regard. Can you dig it, man?

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post