Jacoco agent not shown code coverage for the shaded code.#jacoco - jacoco

Jacoco agent not shown code coverage for the shaded code, I am able to see the code coverage of the un shaded code, but if I shaded some code in my project then report get generated but EclEmma showing the code coverage as 0%.

Related

How to Generate code coverage report using Gtest on Windows by using Gcov and Lcov

I am using gtest for testing my code in C++ with Vs code, I am able to generate test report, but I could not genetare gtest code coverage report, I installed gcov lcov. I would like to know that, is there any way to find out the code coverage gtest or not? as I have googled a lot, but I could not find any possible way to get the code coverage result by using Gcov and Lcov in Windows environment. If there is any possibility, please let me know.
Thank You.
I am expecting Gtest code coverage report by using Gcov and Lcov in HTML format.enter image description here

ReSharper Unit Test Covarage not showing coverage

When running ReSharper Unit Test Coverage in Visual Studio 2019 v.16.11.10 with ReSharper v.2021.3.3, the coverage on the files is not shown/run.
On the image, a snippet of the Unit Test Coverage is shown, where it is seen that the unit tests are run and how much of those tests are covered. Unfolding one of the packages that should be tested by the tests, it is possible to see that ReSharper cannot generate coverage. Is this because all the functionality is packed into the (1.0.0.0, .NETFramework, Version=v4.7.2)?
If this is the problem, is there any workaround? Or how do I get rid of the line if it causes any problems? If I then get rid of the line, will everything then be packaged in a different manner? Or will everything work the same as before?
One of the other projects in my team does not have this extra line where everything is packed into, and ReSharper can generate Unit Test Coverage as it should.

TeamCity reports incorrect code coverage with dotCover for c# unit tests

I am somewhat new to TeamCity. I have set it up for a Visual Studio solution.
I am using NUnit step to run unit tests and dotCover for code coverage. Problem is, there are particular parts of my code that I know are covered by unit tests but in the code coverage report, it shows them with zero coverage.
I know the DLLs are created just fine because I run a dir /s command and can see all the test DLLs.
The NUnit step uses MSIL 4.0 platform and the test path looks like this:
**/bin/Debug/*Tests.dll
There are no filters under code coverage.
Many tests are run. But there are some specific tests that are not present in the search report when I search.
Why is this happening and how do I fix it?
Can you please provide information about your NUnit step, especially about .Net Coverage (Filters).
Can you also confirm that tests are actually run?
Full build log (pasted in pastebin.com or such provider) would be also appreciated.
Stupid me. The DLL that was being ignored was spelled *Test.dll instead of *Tests.dll. I use *Tests.dll in my test path.
The issue got fixed once I changed it to *Test*.dll

Unit Tests coverage in SONARQUBE

I can obtain the Unit Tests coverage in SONAR by using jacoco tool for code coverage and used its report in sonar properties file as 'sonar.jacoco.reportPath=../Reports/report.exec'. How to obtain the Unit Tests coverage in SONAR by using RAD's default plugin, which generates reports in .coveragedata, .analysis and .html formats?
This format is not supported. You have to find a way to convert the RAD reports to JaCoCo, Cobertura or Clover format.

Branch-coverage with Cobertura plugin for the Play! Framework

I'm using the Play! Framework with the Cobertura module to get code coverage. This works fine, but unfortunately, the module seems to have no (obvious) option to make branch coverage reports too.
How do I enable branch coverage in the Cobertura module?
Or in other words, how do you test branch coverage in a Play application?
Branch coverage magically appears in the report now, maybe it was there all the time and I just didn't see it. My bad.