# Coverage mismatch: Istanbul vs Sonar **URL:** \ **Category:** SonarQube Cloud\ **Tags:** coverage\ **Created:** [October 31, 2019, 7:42am UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/coverage-mismatch-istanbul-vs-sonar/16104 "2019-10-31T07:42:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![StepanBeznosovEvryth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@StepanBeznosovEvryth](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/StepanBeznosovEvryth)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2019, 7:42am UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/coverage-mismatch-istanbul-vs-sonar/16104/1 "2019-10-31T07:42:01Z")
- ALM: GitHub - CI: Bitrise - Sonar plugin: sonar-scanner - Language: JS (react native) - Config: ```auto sonar.organization=*** sonar.host.url=https://sonarcloud.io sonar.sources=src sonar.test.inclusions=src/**/*.test.js sonar.javascript.lcov.reportPaths=coverage/lcov.info sonar.sourceEncoding=UTF-8 sonar.login=$SONAR_KEY sonar.branch.name=$branch sonar.branch.target=*** sonar.exclusions= **/ __tests__ /** /* , **/ __mocks__ /** /* , **/*.png ``` - Issue: Delta between istanbul coverage and sonar’s one is around 20%, which is incredibly huge amount. What do I need to do to make coverage is almost the same in both tools? - Running info: ````auto INFO: Project root configuration file: NONE INFO: SonarQube Scanner 3.1.0.1141 INFO: Java 1.8.0_202 Oracle Corporation (64-bit) INFO: Mac OS X 10.15 x86_64 INFO: User cache: ***/.sonar/cache INFO: SonarQube server 8.0.0 INFO: Default locale: "en_BY", source code encoding: "UTF-8" INFO: Load global settings INFO: Load global settings (done) | time=314ms INFO: Server id: *** INFO: User cache: ***/.sonar/cache INFO: Load/download plugins INFO: Load plugins index INFO: Load plugins index (done) | time=68ms INFO: Load/download plugins (done) | time=1153ms INFO: Loaded core extensions: developer-scanner INFO: Process project properties INFO: Execute project builders INFO: Execute project builders (done) | time=4ms INFO: Project key: *** INFO: Base dir: *** INFO: Working dir: *** INFO: Load project settings for component key: '***' INFO: Load project settings for component key: '***' (done) | time=89ms INFO: Load project branches INFO: Load project branches (done) | time=162ms INFO: Load projects for organization '***' INFO: Load projects for organization '***' (done) | time=874ms INFO: Load project pull requests INFO: Load project pull requests (done) | time=78ms INFO: Load branch configuration INFO: Load branch configuration (done) | time=2ms INFO: Load quality profiles INFO: Load quality profiles (done) | time=87ms INFO: Load active rules INFO: Load active rules (done) | time=1732ms INFO: Organization key: *** INFO: Branch name: feat/ACM-186, type: short living INFO: SCM collecting changed files in the branch INFO: SCM collecting changed files in the branch (done) | time=146ms INFO: Indexing files... INFO: Project configuration: INFO: Excluded sources: **/ __tests__ /** /*, **/ __mocks__ /** /*, **/*.png, src/** /*.test.js INFO: Included tests: src/**/*.test.js INFO: 240 files indexed INFO: 0 files ignored because of inclusion/exclusion patterns INFO: 0 files ignored because of scm ignore settings INFO: Quality profile for js: Sonar way Recommended INFO: ------------- Run sensors on module mobile-activation-app INFO: Load metrics repository INFO: Load metrics repository (done) | time=53ms INFO: Sensor JavaXmlSensor [java] INFO: Sensor JavaXmlSensor [java] (done) | time=2ms INFO: Sensor HTML [web] INFO: Sensor HTML [web] (done) | time=5ms INFO: Sensor JaCoCo XML Report Importer [jacoco] INFO: Sensor JaCoCo XML Report Importer [jacoco] (done) | time=4ms INFO: Sensor ESLint-based JavaScript analysis [javascript] INFO: 186 source files to be analyzed INFO: Sensor ESLint-based JavaScript analysis [javascript] (done) | time=5561ms INFO: Sensor SonarJS Coverage [javascript] INFO: 186/186 source files have been analyzed INFO: Analysing [***/coverage/lcov.info] WARN: Could not resolve 9 file paths in [***/coverage/lcov.info], first unresolved path:***/src/app/assets/images/barcode-inverted.png INFO: Sensor SonarJS Coverage [javascript] (done) | time=79ms INFO: Sensor SonarJS [javascript] INFO: 186 source files to be analyzed INFO: Sensor SonarJS [javascript] (done) | time=1747ms INFO: Sensor JavaSecuritySensor [security] INFO: 186/186 source files have been analyzed INFO: Reading type hierarchy from: *** INFO: Read 0 type definitions INFO: Reading UCFGs from: *** INFO: No UCFGs have been included for analysis. INFO: Sensor JavaSecuritySensor [security] (done) | time=4ms INFO: Sensor CSharpSecuritySensor [security] INFO: Reading type hierarchy from: *** INFO: Read 0 type definitions INFO: Reading UCFGs from: *** INFO: No UCFGs have been included for analysis. INFO: Sensor CSharpSecuritySensor [security] (done) | time=0ms INFO: Sensor PhpSecuritySensor [security] INFO: Reading type hierarchy from: *** INFO: Read 0 type definitions INFO: Reading UCFGs from: *** INFO: No UCFGs have been included for analysis. INFO: Sensor PhpSecuritySensor [security] (done) | time=0ms INFO: ------------- Run sensors on project INFO: Sensor Zero Coverage Sensor INFO: Sensor Zero Coverage Sensor (done) | time=6ms INFO: 49 files had no CPD blocks INFO: Calculating CPD for 137 files INFO: CPD calculation finished INFO: SCM writing changed lines INFO: SCM writing changed lines (done) | time=4ms INFO: Analysis report generated in 103ms, dir size=234 KB INFO: Analysis report compressed in 242ms, zip size=169 KB INFO: Analysis report uploaded in 172ms INFO: ANALYSIS SUCCESSFUL, you can browse *** INFO: Note that you will be able to access the updated dashboard once the server has processed the submitted analysis report INFO: More about the report processing at *** INFO: Analysis total time: 15.655 s INFO: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ INFO: EXECUTION SUCCESS INFO: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ INFO: Total time: 20.837s INFO: Final Memory: 37M/574M INFO: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ✨ Done in 42.81s.``` ```` ---
**Author:** ![Gregoire\_Aubert](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/user_avatar/community.sonarsource.com/gregoire_aubert/32/29_2.png) [@Gregoire\_Aubert](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/Gregoire_Aubert)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 8:08am UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/coverage-mismatch-istanbul-vs-sonar/16104/3 "2019-11-05T08:08:01Z")
Hello! And welcome to the community forum! You could check in the SonarCloud UI which files have a coverage metric and that don’t in Istanbul. You might have a different configurations between the two and maybe you want to ignore some files in SonarCloud with the `sonar.coverage.exclusions` setting. ---
**Author:** ![StepanBeznosovEvryth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@StepanBeznosovEvryth](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/StepanBeznosovEvryth)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 8:21am UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/coverage-mismatch-istanbul-vs-sonar/16104/4 "2019-11-05T08:21:21Z")
Thank you for reply, but unfortunately (and I have no idea why) sonar says that react-native libs are not covered by tests. I tried to exclude node\_modules, but not succeed with that attempt. ---
**Author:** ![Gregoire\_Aubert](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/user_avatar/community.sonarsource.com/gregoire_aubert/32/29_2.png) [@Gregoire\_Aubert](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/Gregoire_Aubert)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 8:48am UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/coverage-mismatch-istanbul-vs-sonar/16104/5 "2019-11-05T08:48:56Z")
So you did change your config to add the exclusion in `sonar.coverage.exclusions` ? And the node\_modules files are still showing in SonarCloud after a new analysis ? Can you double check that the exclusion path is correct ? And something weird is that normally the node\_modules are ignored by default by our js analyzer. Also could it be that your coverage tool is computing the coverage for your node\_modules folder ? ---
**Author:** ![StepanBeznosovEvryth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@StepanBeznosovEvryth](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/StepanBeznosovEvryth)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 9:04am UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/coverage-mismatch-istanbul-vs-sonar/16104/6 "2019-11-05T09:04:10Z")
I tried to add node\_modules to exclusions in config, result the same. Istanbul ignores node\_modules as well. As example: Istanbul: import View from ‘react-native’ -\> no problems Sonar cloud: same import -\> 20/34 covered And such issue on most of files. ---
**Author:** ![Gregoire\_Aubert](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/user_avatar/community.sonarsource.com/gregoire_aubert/32/29_2.png) [@Gregoire\_Aubert](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/Gregoire_Aubert)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2019, 1:32pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/coverage-mismatch-istanbul-vs-sonar/16104/7 "2019-11-06T13:32:30Z")
And what does the lcov file says about the same file? The coverage values that appears in SonarCloud comes directly from reading this lcov file. So for a given file you should not see any difference between what is in the lcov file and what’s reported in SonarCloud. One other thing, there is different coverage values displayed in SonarCloud : - line coverage: coverage based on line, as reported in the lcov file - condition coverage: coverage based on the conditions, as reported in the lcov file - coverage: is the result of a calcul based on line and condition coverage ---
**Author:** ![StepanBeznosovEvryth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@StepanBeznosovEvryth](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/StepanBeznosovEvryth)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2019, 12:13pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/coverage-mismatch-istanbul-vs-sonar/16104/8 "2019-11-11T12:13:39Z")
So the data in lcov related to the file: ```auto FN:5,_interopRequireDefault FN:7,clearAllStores FNF:2 FNH:1 FNDA:33,_interopRequireDefault FNDA:0,clearAllStores DA:1,33 DA:5,33 DA:8,0 DA:13,33 DA:14,33 LF:5 LH:4 BRDA:5,0,0,33 BRDA:5,0,1,0 BRDA:5,1,0,33 BRDA:5,1,1,33 BRF:4 BRH:3 end_of_record ``` How it looks in istanbul vs sonar: ![44](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/uploads/sonarcommunity/original/2X/8/8084c32e6a4096f27d3123c8bebe4fd310522bf5.png) The question is why coverage is different here, and sonar points cases which are excluded in istanbul. ---
**Author:** ![Sanath\_Kumar](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/user_avatar/community.sonarsource.com/sanath_kumar/32/15585_2.png) [@Sanath\_Kumar](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/Sanath_Kumar)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2020, 8:44pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/coverage-mismatch-istanbul-vs-sonar/16104/9 "2020-09-28T20:44:51Z")
Did you end up finding out why? I’m new to this tool and I’m stuck with this problem.