Home | Crucible | Forums

Cenqua


Home » Cenqua User Forums » Clover for .NET

Thread: Code coverage via .Net Framework Profiler API (vs. source-code instrmtg.)?

Welcome, Guest
This question is answered. Helpful answers available: 2. Correct answers available: 1.


Replies: 2 - Pages: 1 - : Feb 9, 2021 2:27 PM by: walquis

Posts: 4
Registered:
Code coverage via .Net Framework Profiler API (vs. source-code instrmtg.)?
Posted: Feb 8, 2021 4:52 PM
 

I'm browsing through the how-to's of Clover.Net and getting ready to take the eval for a test drive.

All that source-code instrumenting labor looks quite daunting!

My current client has been using NCover (the ncover.org one). No instrumenting necessary, just wrap it around your nunit-console.exe and you get an XML output file when nunit exits.

This would be perfect, except that NCover is basically one guy, and it's hard for him to keep NCover current with latest .Net developments.

So, Clover.Net looks attractive from the support point of view. But I'm not looking forward to making copies of our entire source code tree in order to get the numbers out! A simple NCover-like wrapper around, say, nunit would be wonderful.

Thanks,
-chris walquist


Posts: 673
Registered:
Re: Code coverage via .Net Framework Profiler API (vs. source-code instrmtg
Posted: Feb 9, 2021 8:10 AM   in response to:
 

Clover.NET's approach is source based instrumentation. We believe it has certain advantages in terms of knowing exactly what the code says. It does have some disadvantages too in terms of managing the source instrumentation steps, etc.

What is your current build process? Clover.NET can integrate relatively easily into most .NET build processes so the pain is not so bad.


Posts: 4
Registered:
Re: Code coverage via .Net Framework Profiler API (vs. source-code instrmtg
Posted: Feb 9, 2021 2:27 PM   in response to:
 

We use Draco wrapping NAnt wrapping Nunit, with a variety of custom tools thrown in. We'd have to get off the NAnt rc3 release to use the clover tasks. I suppose you're right, it might not be so bad.

Thanks!
-chris