i have some set of jbehave tests and regular jenkins job with xunit plugin that create report from xml files. So far so good. Now, unfortunately i need to add some actions and it is easier to add them in pipeline. But i don't get how to generate jbehave report in pipeline. Been trying to use 'pipeline-syntax' help but this page only generate xunit([<object of type org.jbehave.jenkins.JBehavePluginType>])
I'm using Gradle sonarqube plugin and I need to exclude all test sources from the sonar analysis (main goal is to filter out unit test classes from the issues/code smells report)
To do so, I have used the dedicated sonar.test.exclusions property as follow, to exclude the whole src/test directory from analysis
sonarqube {
properties {
property("sonar.exclusions" , "")
property("sonar.test.exclusions" , "src/test/**/*.java")
// other sonar properties, omitted
}
}
This works as expected (test sources are filtered out) BUT : when this property is set, sonar does not compute/report number of unit tests correctly.
See simple example for a very basic project: 2 main source files, 1 test source file containing 2 Junit tests (and also containing some issues I don"t want to see in report)
Without exclusions:
Sonar properly reports my 2 unit tests, but it also includes code smells from the unit test class
With exclusions:
Now, code smells from the unit test are properly filtered, but I lost the Unit test count information
Notes:
using Gradle 6.7, sonarqube plugin version 3.0, and sonar server Community EditionVersion 8.4.2
also tried with the property sonar.exclusions : same problem
all other sonar properties are correctly set and have same values in both scenarios : specially sonar.tests, sonar.java.test.binaries, sonar.junit.reportPaths, sonar.jacoco.reportPath
Any idea how to configure the sonarqube plugin, to exclude properly test sources, while keeping Unit tests information available?
I agree with Chriki's answer but only the first part : using sonar.test.exclusions is not the good way.
I disagree with the last part : using sonar.issue.ignore.multicriteria is totally possible with Gradle
https://www.baeldung.com/sonar-exclude-violations#using-sonar-projectproperties
Try something like this (not tested from my end though) :
sonarqube {
properties {
property "sonar.issue.ignore.multicriteria", "e1"
property "sonar.issue.ignore.multicriteria.e1.resourceKey", "src/test/java/**/*"
property "sonar.issue.ignore.multicriteria.e1.ruleKey", "*"
}
}
What you’re after doesn’t seem to be possible from a Gradle configuration. Let me elaborate on how I came to that conclusion.
In a (admittedly very) old thread on the Sonarqube mailing list from 2013, somebody asked the same question (albeit for Maven). A Sonarqube consultant has answered it as follows:
When you exclude a file (or a test file) with sonar.exclusions (or sonar.test.exclusions), the file is just ignored by SonarQube. The source code is not imported, no metrics are computed on this file (such as number of tests).
To ignore some specific issues on specific files, see http://docs.codehaus.org/display/SONAR/Narrowing+the+Focus#NarrowingtheFocus-IgnoreIssues. To ignore some files to be taking into account for code coverage computation, see http://docs.codehaus.org/display/SONAR/Narrowing+the+Focus#NarrowingtheFocus-IgnoreCodeCoverage and so on.
The current documentation link corresponding to the first (now broken) one from the quote is this: https://docs.sonarqube.org/latest/project-administration/narrowing-the-focus/#header-3 (or for version 8.4) It’s about ignoring “issues on certain components and against certain coding rules” – which is what you’re after, if I’m not mistaken. However, these docs state right at the beginning:
Note that the properties below can only be set through the web interface because they are multi-valued.
Here “web interface” is meant as opposed to a (Gradle) build configuration for example. In fact, the previously mentioned Sonarqube consultant explicitly states this for Maven, too:
The property is sonar.issue.ignore.multicriteria. I think I read somewhere that you have to do these through the GUI because they are multi-valued? Is that the case? If not, how would I write it as an entry in the pom.xml? We like to keep all config in the one place (pom.xml).
It's unfortunately not possible.
The mailing list discussion is a bit longer and gives more insight, so it may be worth a read in full. It also sheds some more light on the sonar.test.exclusions property for which I could otherwise not find any good documentation.
We have a large Maven project with about 50 modules. Today we have a good setup where we get a combined JaCoCo coverage for the whole project. We also use the final binary generated by JaCoCo for custom coverage logic.
We would like to implement a more strict coverage policy where only tests in the same module contribute to the overall coverage. We want every module to be responsible for its own tests and coverage.
For example. Module A depends on module B. A has code that makes use of code in B. When tests in A is run, we do not want to have coverage from any class in B recorded.
Is this setup possible? Trying around, I find that JaCoCo has many options for filtering when generating the final report, but I'd like to do this in the first step, when the coverage is collected.
Eventually, I'd like to end up with a JaCoCo exec file in each module's target directory that only has classes recorded from its own module. It would be perfectly fine if we had to do some configuration on a module-by-module basis like having an explicit package expression for inclusion.
Trying around, I find that JaCoCo has many options for filtering when generating the final report, but I'd like to do this in the first step, when the coverage is collected.
There is also options for filtering during collection - see includes and excludes options of JaCoCo Java Agent and corresponding options of prepare-agent in jacoco-maven-plugin.
Build of JaCoCo itself uses them exactly for this.
I am using Karma Test Runner on my JavaScript project to generate a Unit Test Report (target/surefire-report/TESTS-karma.xml) but I am unable to make SonarQube import this by setting 'sonar.dynamicAnalysis' to 'reuseReports'.
I configured my Maven POM as follows:
<sonar.language>js</sonar.language>
<sonar.inclusions>app/**,astCommon/**</sonar.inclusions>
<sonar.dynamicAnalysis>reuseReports</sonar.dynamicAnalysis>
<sonar.javascript.jstest.reportsPath>target/surefire-reports</sonar.javascript.jstest.reportsPath>
<sonar.javascript.jstestdriver.reportsPath>target/surefire-reports</sonar.javascript.jstestdriver.reportsPath>
<sonar.junit.reportsPath>target/surefire-reports</sonar.junit.reportsPath>
<sonar.surefire.reportsPath>target/surefire-reports</sonar.surefire.reportsPath>
(I guess "sonar.javascript.jstest.reportsPath" is the right property but just to be sure I did include some other properties as well)
What also surpises me is that I do not get a warning when I enter an incorrect path in 'sonar.javascript.jstest.reportsPath'. I kind of expected 'Reports path not found'. This makes me suspect that SonarQube somehow is not aware that it should reuse the existing report.
Any hint is appreciated.
Thanks and best,
Ronald
Our project uses Maven as the build tool and we are using Sonar to track quality. JUnit tests are executed by SureFire and the results are displayed in Sonar. We've added some JavaScript tests which are run by the jasmine-maven-plugin and want to include these results in the Sonar project.
The plugin generates a JUnit style XML report. How should we go about including the XML report in Sonar? Do we want to merge the XML reports as part of the build maybe?
You need to be sure the format generated by Jasmine is compliant with the JUnit XML format expected by the JavaScript Plugin : http://docs.sonarqube.org/display/PLUG/JavaScript+Unit+Tests+Execution+Reports+Import
You can also have a look at the format supported by the Generic Test Coverage Plugin : http://docs.sonarqube.org/display/SONAR/Generic+Test+Coverage
You don't need to merge the XML reports, there are different sonar.* properties to feed depending on the way you want to load your data: thru the JavaScript Plugin or the Generic Test Coverage. As a consequence, you don't need to run SonarQube analysis twice.