We've recently set our Continuous Integration environment to do an incremental code analysis before a Merge Request on Git can be accepted. We already use the HTML issues report and the Build Breaker plugin. Everything works beautifully. The thing is, we're having some issues because the build is broken on < 85% code coverage. I didn't find any plugin to let the user know where the coverage dropped. Is there any way to show that comparison between the analisys that is recorded on my server and the one Jenkins is incrementally building ?
Thanks a lot!
Im using sonar4.5.4 and we use the Coverage on new code metric in our quality gate, in that metric we compare with the previous analysis
Related
It has been cleared here that from Sonarqube version 6.2 that coverage reports are merged and there won't be separate unit and integration coverage report anymore.
We still interested to have these two coverage reports separately. So, We have three sonar projects: unit-tests, integration-tests, whole-project(which is responsible to create overall coverage report)
Problem: All source files are analysed in all three projects. Since the number of files are too many, it takes several minutes to perform the analysis.
Question: Is it possible to turn off sonar issue analyser somehow in a project? It is desired to report only test coverage in the the first two projects(unit-tests & integration-tests) without analysing all files, and then run the issue analyzer only on the last project(whole-project). It could help us to analyse all files once instead of three times.
Additional info: We use sonar gradle plugin version 2.6.2 and sonarqube version 7.4
SonarQube/SonarCloud main responsibility is informing users about issues. Displaying code coverage is just an additional feature. It means there is no flag/parameter which allows you to do it.
Luckily, there is a workaround. You can create empty quality profiles, and use them to scan those two projects (unit-tests & integration-tests). You will get 0 issues because there are zero rules enabled.
The following feature request should be interesting for you: Making test coverage measures mode useful. Feel free to vote on it.
I have set up SonarQube, Maven and Cobertura to upload unit test coverage at every build run. I want to use the differential views to get coverage for the delta (new code only).
The coverage itself is successfully uploaded, and I can see the delta in lines of code. However, I can't get the "Coverage on new Code" to work.
I tried different values for the leak period, including previous_analysis and previous_version (changing the version from 1.0 to 1.1 in the new analysis). I also used -Dsonar.projectDate to simulate a past date of analysis but still no luck.
Any thoughts?
The key requirement to obtain new_code -related information/metrics is to leverage SonarQube SCM integration. And to benefit from that you have to install a compatible SCM Plugin applicable to your project (e.g. Git Plugin, SVN Plugin etc.).
"Coverage on New Code" is only displayed if you are using/activating SCM support (SVN, Git, ...).
sonar.scm.disabled=false
Adding this sonar.java.binaries=classes directory, most likely target/classes
helped me in fixing this issue. No JaCoCo analysis of project coverage can be done since there is no class files
I am using SonarQube 4.3 version to show Unit tests and other code metrics analysis results. Now I am looking for incremental preview or mode for my analysis results as described here.
I am looking to see whether the last code checked-in has a 100% unit test coverage, no security violations and has other quality gates passed.
Currently sonar gives overall combined report for all the files within project. Can we have one for the changed files in the last build as well?
I'm trying to run a preview analysis for a (Java) project of ours with SonarQube 5.1.1. I am able to get a local report generated, however I get no coverage data, and I also get the message [INFO] [XX:YY:ZZ.ZZZ] Build Breaker plugin is no more supported in preview/incremental mode.
If I check here, the page says that Starting with SonarQube 5.1, the Build Breaker plugin does not work any longer in the preview & incremental modes..
I'm confused - I thought that for continuous inspection one needs the build breaker plugin. Is that no longer so? Has the concept in SonarQube changed?
Why am I not getting coverage data when running a preview analysis?
I don't know where you've read this, but continuous inspection is not specifically related to the preview/incremental mode nor to the build breaker plugin - it's not even related to SonarQube (even though it has been pushed by SonarSource from the very beginning).
Here are the key points:
Continuous inspection is about analyzing your code as often as you can in order to monitor (and eventually improve) the quality of your code. Whatever the tool.
On SonarQube, this means running analyses that will push information on the server so that you can monitor what's going on and take the required actions for your application portfolio.
Obviously, when you are a developer, you'd like to manage those issues early, before they even get pushed to the source code repository. But experience tells us that preventing any code push because of issues is a bad pattern - because some issues might be false-positive or not relevant in the context (and still you want - and have the right, to push your code). This is why we feel that the build breaker plugin is not aligned with all this, and it will be replaced in upcoming versions of SQ by native features that match better these concepts:
Very efficient code analysis to display issues in the IDE at the speed of light - but without computing metrics
Preview mode that will compute everything and make it possible to check quality gate before pushing code to the source code repository - without impacting the results on the server
and in this case, using some specific information found in the logs, it will be possible for a CI to fail a build
Does Sonar offer any way to raise alerts and fail a build when the trend for certain metrics is bad?
Background: In our legacy project using a static threshold for example for code coverage ("red alert when coverage is below 80%") does not make much sense. But we would like to make sure that the coverage does not go down any further.
Please do not give any advice on lowering the bar by using a less restrictive rule set. This is no option in our case.
There is a build breaker plug-in that will fail the build if you breach a Warning or Error threshold setup in the quality profile.
Plug-in details are here:
http://docs.sonarqube.org/display/PLUG/Build+Breaker+Plugin
Not aware of any functionality that enables you to a metric trend.
We use Sonar as the second last step in our release process. The build breaker ensures that releases do not breach predetermined quality criteria.
We tried exactly the same, using the build breaker plugin. After a while, it showed to be too unflexible (and configuring Sonar is a mess), so we moved from sonar to Jenkins/Hudson plugins like Cobertura (for code coverage) or PMD for code style:
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/PMD+Plugin
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Cobertura+Plugin
With these plugins, very fine-granular settings are possible, to set for example the build to yellow at <70% code coverage or to red by <50%; even the weather-symbol for each build is setable.
In the meanwhile we scripted our own buildbreaker that gets excecuted within our build. We use Groovy to query the REST API of Sonar to retrieve a certain set of metrics (including their historical values). The retrieval of metrics is provided by a build plugin that is provided for our whole division.
Each team can parameterize their build with a set of rules regarding those metrics that have to be verified for their project. Of course, the rules are also provides as Groovy snippets :-)
Typical are:
Number of (major|critical|blocker) violations is less or equal than in previous build
No new duplicates
Coverage not lower than in previous build
Bad findings can then be used for breaking the build or just for reporting.