Unit Test Coverage Tools Question

I've been trying out a trial copy of Clover to measure unit test coverage.
I really like the way that Clover integrates with Eclipse and has the
ability to mark coverage gaps on the actual source code within the IDE.  My
company has started to use JCoverage to measure coverage but JCoverage
doesn't appear to match Clover in terms of IDE integration.  I'm sure that I
can convince my company to cough up the $250 to get a license but before I
do I thought I'd do some due diligence on alternatives.  What coverage tools
do you use/recommend?  Do you use it through an IDE (specifically, Eclipse)?
Any thoughts on this subject are appreciated.

---  Alan Honeycutt wrote:
> [...]  I'm sure that I can convince my company to cough up the $250
> to get a license but before I do I thought I'd do some due diligence
> on alternatives.

It will cost your company /a lot/ more than that to do the due
diligence.  I recommend getting clover, and a couple other tools, and
try them out.  If Clover proves to be more useful than the other tools,
in your environment, then you can make a cost justification for getting
it for other developers in your organization (if any).

> What coverage tools do you use/recommend?  [...]
> Any thoughts on this subject are appreciated.
See:
http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?CodeCoverageTools

jgrigg wrote:

> Alan Honeycutt wrote:
 
>
> It will cost your company /a lot/ more than that to do the due
> diligence.  I recommend getting clover, and a couple other tools, and
> try them out.  If Clover proves to be more useful than the other tools,
> in your environment, then you can make a cost justification for getting
> it for other developers in your organization (if any).

Jeff, what are their needs? Are they doing medical software, or are they
just curious?

If the former, why Java??

--
Phlip
http://industrialxp.org/community/b...tUserInterfaces

I figure that if they're stressing over $250 for a tool, then they must
not be doing medical software.  Or anything else life-critical or
regulated.  (At least I hope not!!!)  ;->

On the other hand, if "due diligence" is actually a real business
concern to them, then $250 per tool will probably turn out to be only a
small portion of the "due diligence" investigation costs.  So I
propose, as a seemingly reasonable strategy, "get lots of tools and try
them out on your code in your environment."  That would be not only
quick and (relatively) inexpensive, it can also be *quite* relevant and
effective.  For expensive tools, ask for trial versions.

Either way, I favor /doing something/ over philosophizing about the
problem.  ;->

<jgrigg@mo.net> wrote in message
news:1105763942.800966.76700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> ---  Alan Honeycutt wrote: 
>
> It will cost your company /a lot/ more than that to do the due
> diligence.  I recommend getting clover, and a couple other tools, and
> try them out.  If Clover proves to be more useful than the other tools,
> in your environment, then you can make a cost justification for getting
> it for other developers in your organization (if any).

I didn't get that he was  particularly concerned with the full
legal implication of the term "due diligence." Maybe he is, but
this newsgroup seems to be a strange place to start if so.

John Roth

> 
> See:
> http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?CodeCoverageTools
>