I am using Cobertura maven plugin [version 2.7] to understand the code coverage for my tests. I am using PowerMock [version 1.6.6] to mock dependent objects. But when I run mvn cobertura:cobertura and check the report, the coverage remains the same. It works fine when I do not use mocking. Is this a compatibility issue?
I tried mvn clean multiple times just to be sure that the report is newly generated.
Here is my pom.xml
<properties>
<powermock.version>1.6.6</powermock.version>
</properties>
<build>
<plugins>
<!-- Cobertura plugin for code coverage -->
<plugin>
<groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId>
<artifactId>cobertura-maven-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.7</version>
<configuration>
<formats>
<format>html</format>
<format>xml</format>
</formats>
</configuration>
</plugin>
</plugins>
</build>
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>junit</groupId>
<artifactId>junit</artifactId>
<version>4.12</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
<artifactId>powermock-module-junit4</artifactId>
<version>${powermock.version}</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
<artifactId>powermock-api-mockito</artifactId>
<version>${powermock.version}</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
Any help on this is appreciated.
Unfortunately, there's a big chance that it's impossible. I don't know how exactly Cobertura works, but I suspect that it uses same approach like a JaCoCo and modifies byte code with Java Agent.
But PowerMock reads classes from disk when loads a class, so all changes are lost.
One small change that Cobertura can modify classes during compile time. If yes, then you may try it.
Cobertura project looks abandoned, so I don't see any reason to spend time on integrating with not supported project. I'd like to focus on integration with JaCoCo and provides supporting on-fly instrumenting.
Related
I use google/auto-value to create immutable value classes in a maven project.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<project xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0 http://maven.apache.org/xsd/maven-4.0.0.xsd"
xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0">
<modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
[...]
<packaging>war</packaging>
<properties>
<auto-value.version>1.7</auto-value.version>
</properties>
<build>
<plugins>
<plugin>
<artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId>
<version>3.8.1</version>
<configuration>
<annotationProcessorPaths>
<path>
<groupId>com.google.auto.value</groupId>
<artifactId>auto-value</artifactId>
<version>${auto-value.version}</version>
</path>
</annotationProcessorPaths>
</configuration>
</plugin>
</plugins>
</build>
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>com.google.auto.value</groupId>
<artifactId>auto-value-annotations</artifactId>
<version>${auto-value.version}</version>
</dependency>
[...]
<dependency>
<groupId>org.junit.jupiter</groupId>
<artifactId>junit-jupiter</artifactId>
<version>5.5.2</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
</project>
This works like a charm using the CLI (e.g. mvn clean test) but creates an error during IntelliJ project builds:
Error:java: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: com/google/auto/service/AutoService
com.google.auto.service.AutoService
Noteworthy: The correct sources are generated into generated-sources/annotations/... but the IntelliJ build fails after this step and does not create the generated test sources directory generated-test-sources/....
While the issue can be easily fixed by adding another annotation processor path to the maven-compiler-plugin
<path>
<groupId>com.google.auto.service</groupId>
<artifactId>auto-service</artifactId>
<version>1.0-rc6</version>
</path>
this fix has the downside of looking up and manually changing the auto-service version whenever the auto-value-dependency version changes. Is there an obvious mistake i made in my pom file or a setting in IntelliJ i don't know? As far as i can see a correct annotation processing profile is created when i import the project into IntelliJ.
I faced the same issue, and I fixed it without touching to the code. Here's what I did:
In the Settings/Preferences dialog Ctrl+Alt+S, go to Build, Execution, Deployment | Compiler | Annotation Processors.
Select the default, or select your own application profile or create a new one (click "+" on the bottom of the page).
Make sure Enable annotation processing is selected
Change the radio button from Processor path to Obtain processors from the project classpath.
This looks like a bug in IntelliJ, if it builds with mvn but not from within IntelliJ. I see the same thing. There is an alternative way of configuring AutoValue which avoids the problem:
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>com.google.auto.value</groupId>
<artifactId>auto-value-annotations</artifactId>
<version>1.7</version>
<optional>true</optional>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>com.google.auto.value</groupId>
<artifactId>auto-value</artifactId>
<version>1.7</version>
<optional>true</optional>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
You don't need the <annotationProcessorPaths> stuff in this case. On the downside, there's apparently some risk of the AutoValue annotation processor (the auto-value artifact) or its dependencies finding their way into your built project.
I have src in Java, and tests in Groovy (easyb stories). I run my groovy/easyb stories via maven plugin.
Now I want to write some helpers in groovy to use them in my groovy tests. Where should I put them in my project and what should I configure in addition?
So, the answer is pretty simple... And lives at http://groovy.codehaus.org/Groovy-Eclipse+compiler+plugin+for+Maven
In short:
Configure compiler in pom:
<plugin>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId>
<version>3.1</version>
<configuration>
<compilerId>groovy-eclipse-compiler</compilerId>
</configuration>
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.codehaus.groovy</groupId>
<artifactId>groovy-eclipse-compiler</artifactId>
<version>2.8.0-01</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.codehaus.groovy</groupId>
<artifactId>groovy-eclipse-batch</artifactId>
<version>2.1.8-01</version>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
</plugin>
Just put groovy files under src/main/groovy
That's it.
I have some TestNG tests in my project running alongside of jUnit tests. Everyone coexists peacefully and stuff runs as expected, until one day instead of working all the time things changed to working some of the time.
When running mvn clean install tests get to the point of
Configuring TestNG with: TestNG652Configurator
and gets stuck. Nothing seems to happen since.
When running mvn -X clean install tests get to the exact same point without issues (no errors on top) and refuses to move further.
I am using
<dependency>
<groupId>org.testng</groupId>
<artifactId>testng</artifactId>
<version>6.8</version>
</dependency>
and
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>junit</groupId>
<artifactId>junit</artifactId>
<version>4.10</version>
</dependency>
What can be going on here please?
I've never seen Surefire (the plugin that runs the tests) run tests from both JUnit and TestNG out-of-the-box, although it's supposed to do it.
You can force surefire to run both JUnit and TestNG by forcing the providers as explained here. For example, the following will force TestNG and JUnit 4.7
<plugin>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.13</version>
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.surefire</groupId>
<artifactId>surefire-junit47</artifactId>
<version>2.13</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.surefire</groupId>
<artifactId>surefire-testng</artifactId>
<version>2.13</version>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
</plugin>
Another thing that might influence the result is if you have configured TestNG to run some test groups
.
I have 2 projects that I am using the FindBugs plugin in maven to identify bugs. I am also using the #SuppressFBWarnings annotation to ignore specific bugs.
With the first project, I added the dependancies to the pom.xml and both the findbugs report and the annotation worked fine. With the second project, the report gets generated, but it still identifies bugs that I have suppressed using the annotation.
I run mvn clean install site to generate the reports on my machine in the build folder.
Each of the 2 projects I mentioned, have sub-projects with their own pom.xml files in their sub-directories, so in the parent directory, I also have a pom.xml. This directory layout is mirrored identically in both of the main projects.
Here is the XML I added to the parent poms under the <reporting> tag:
<plugin>
<groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId>
<artifactId>findbugs-maven-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.3.2</version>
<configuration>
<xmlOutput>true</xmlOutput>
<findbugsXmlOutput>true</findbugsXmlOutput>
<fork>true</fork>
<threshold>Low</threshold>
<effort>Min</effort>
</configuration>
</plugin>
Also, in this same parent pom, I added this to the <dependencyManagement><dependencies> section:
<dependency>
<groupId>com.google.code.findbugs</groupId>
<artifactId>annotations</artifactId>
<version>2.0.1</version>
</dependency>
This is identical in both of the main projects poms.
Now, in the sub-projects where I actually use the #SuppressFBWarnings annotation, and only in that particular sub-project, I have this under <dependencies>:
<dependency>
<groupId>com.google.code.findbugs</groupId>
<artifactId>annotations</artifactId>
<version>2.0.1</version>
</dependency>
Also, this is mirrored in the other working project. I copied and pasted directly.
One project works perfect and I can successfully suppress false positives. The other project completely ignores the #SuppressFBWarnings anotation, and I can't seem to fix it.
Is there something I'm missing here?
I think that if an annotation is not found, instead of giving an error, it will just ignore it? How can I tell if its not found?
Hopefully this is a simple fix.
Thanks.
#SuppressFBWarnings was introduced with the annotation in version 3. That's why it should look like this:
<dependency>
<groupId>com.google.code.findbugs</groupId>
<artifactId>annotations</artifactId>
<version>3.0.1</version>
</dependency>
Try to add annotations artifcat to the plugin dependencies :
<plugin>
<groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId>
<artifactId>findbugs-maven-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.3.2</version>
<configuration>
<xmlOutput>true</xmlOutput>
<findbugsXmlOutput>true</findbugsXmlOutput>
<fork>true</fork>
<threshold>Low</threshold>
<effort>Min</effort>
</configuration>
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>com.google.code.findbugs</groupId>
<artifactId>annotations</artifactId>
<version>2.0.1</version>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
</plugin>
Ensure that the dependency added is in between the dependencies tags.
Like this:
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>something</groupId>
<artifactId>something</artifactId>
<version>something</version>
</dependency>
<dependencies>
In a Maven Project I am using PowerMock-easymock to run jUnit test cases. but while doing "mvn clean install" , I am getting below output..
T E S T S
Running TestSuite
Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.621 sec
Results :
Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
But I have many other test cases.
Here is a part of pom.xml
<dependency>
<groupId>junit</groupId>
<artifactId>junit</artifactId>
<version>4.8.2</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.easymock</groupId>
<artifactId>easymock</artifactId>
<version>3.1</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
<artifactId>powermock-easymock-release-full</artifactId>
<version>1.4.12</version>
<type>pom</type>
</dependency>
If I remove, PowerMock dependency and do "mvn clean install" , all test cases are running fine. But I have to use PowerMock. How to solve this issue?
I guess that some of your test cases are not running, did you try this
Use mvn surefire plugin, and include test cases in that.
ensure dependancy of powermock-module-junit4.
check out these link: code.google.com/p/powermock/wiki/EasyMock_maven
http://code.google.com/p/powermock/wiki/GettingStarted
I had the same problem, and it took me a while to figure out. My setup was pulling in an older version of jboss.javassist, which oddly was preventing the PowerMockRunner from working at all.
It's worth noting that I also have a mixed JUnit / TestNG environment. I previously tried the solution of adding multiple surefire providers, and that didn't work either (using surefire 2.14.1). After upgrading to surefire 2.17, both my JUnit and TestNG tests started running without needing to declare any surefire providers. In fact, the JUnit provider threw an error for me, because I'm using groups. Apparently the TestNG provider allows free-form text (e.g. "integration") while the JUnit provider expects a classpath (e.g. "com.example.UnitTests").
Here's my plugin section...
<plugin>
<artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.17</version>
<configuration>
<groups>spring, unit, integration</groups>
<systemPropertyVariables>
<java.awt.headless>true</java.awt.headless>
<org.apache.activemq.default.directory.prefix>target/test/</org.apache.activemq.default.directory.prefix>
<log4j.configuration>file:${project.basedir}/src/test/resources/log4j.properties</log4j.configuration>
</systemPropertyVariables>
<argLine>${surefire.args}</argLine>
</configuration>
</plugin>
... and the relevant testing deps ...
<dependency>
<groupId>org.mockito</groupId>
<artifactId>mockito-all</artifactId>
<version>1.9.5</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<!--
PowerMock versions are compatible with specific Mockito versions.
https://code.google.com/p/powermock/wiki/MockitoUsage13
-->
<dependency>
<groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
<artifactId>powermock-module-junit4</artifactId>
<version>1.5.4</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
<artifactId>powermock-api-mockito</artifactId>
<version>1.5.4</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<!-- without this PowerMock tests don't run in maven -->
<dependency>
<groupId>jboss</groupId>
<artifactId>javassist</artifactId>
<version>3.8.0.GA</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
As per Dipak,
Solution 1:
Add below code in pom.xml
<plugin>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.13</version>
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.surefire</groupId>
<artifactId>surefire-junit47</artifactId>
<version>2.13</version>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
</plugin>
For Correct ArtifactId in dependency , you can see this link if you are using jUnit.
Then do "mvn clean install"
Solution 2:
Add below code in pom.xml
<properties>
<powermock.version>1.5</powermock.version>
</properties>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
<artifactId>powermock-module-junit4</artifactId>
<version>${powermock.version}</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.powermock</groupId>
<artifactId>powermock-api-easymock</artifactId>
<version>${powermock.version}</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
Refer this link for detail
All credits go to Dipak
I had a situation recently where PowerMock tests were run, but not included in the surefire coverage report. We found that the problem had to do with instrumentation.
I'll note that most of our tests run with TestNG. In general, we only use JUnit when we need to leverage PowerMock.
Here is the POM snippet:
<plugin>
<artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.18.1</version>
<configuration>
<systemPropertyVariables>
<org.apache.activemq.default.directory.prefix>target/test/</org.apache.activemq.default.directory.prefix>
<log4j.configuration>file:${project.basedir}/src/test/resources/log4j.properties</log4j.configuration>
<jacoco-agent.destfile>${project.basedir}/target/jacoco.exec</jacoco-agent.destfile>
</systemPropertyVariables>
<argLine>-Xmx512m -XX:MaxPermSize=256m -Djava.awt.headless=true</argLine>
</configuration>
</plugin>
<plugin>
<groupId>org.jacoco</groupId>
<artifactId>jacoco-maven-plugin</artifactId>
<version>0.7.5.201505241946</version>
<executions>
<execution>
<id>instrument</id>
<phase>process-classes</phase>
<goals>
<goal>instrument</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
<execution>
<id>restore</id>
<phase>test</phase>
<goals>
<goal>restore-instrumented-classes</goal>
<goal>report</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
</executions>
</plugin>
The <systemPropertyVariables> are probably not relevant to the fix.
Also, note that JaCoCo's documentation warns against using this type of configuration unless you find it necessary.
http://www.eclemma.org/jacoco/trunk/doc/instrument-mojo.html
Warning: The preferred way for code coverage analysis with JaCoCo is
on-the-fly instrumentation. Offline instrumentation has several
drawbacks and should only be used if a specific scenario explicitly
requires this mode. Please consult documentation about offline
instrumentation before using this mode.