Add option to separate unit & integration test coverage reports

[ryanste...@gmail.com]

Since sonar 6.2, test coverage reports have been merged into a single report

https://blog.sonarsource.com/sonarqube-6-2-in-screenshots

completely removing separate metrics for unit and integration test coverage. 

This was a major feature of sonar for us and the loss is affecting us badly since the upgrade.

Instead of now seeing that we have for example 60% unit test coverage and 72% integration test coverage, making x combined coverage, we just have the x combined coverage.

The pain this has caused has been felt by our developers and managers, Developers can no longer tell where the coverage is coming from in terms of unit or integration tests leading to coverage slippage and QA managers can no longer track their test suits and make improvements. We could have 5% unit test coverage being hidden by 80% integration coverage for example.

We now have to generate 3 separate reports (unit, integration & combined) to get the granular metrics that were once included as standard.

It is baffling to me why this consolidated coverage feature was enforced on everyone, instead of it being made configurable.

It would be great if this could be re-added as a feature, even if it disabled by default.

Thanks

[G. Ann Campbell]

Hi,

Thanks for your input. This is not in our current plans. Our take on this is that most people don't care how their code is covered, only that it's covered. That said, we've reversed ourselves in the past, so if this topic gains traction, we will consider it.

Thanks for understanding,

Ann

[ryanste...@gmail.com]

Hi Ann,

Thanks for the reply.

I agree that "how" the line is covered ultimately shouldn't matter, but we should be able to target ares of deficiency nontheless.

That's why I believe a feature toggle would be suitable for all, that way most people who don't care will get combined coverage, and those of us who need the metrics have them available.

I would ask you kindly to consider this in future as my organisation is considering moving from sonar (which I would hate) , and is citing this as one of the reasons.