Get coverage rate for a project by a test type (UT,IT)

SonarQube Server / Community Build
1

Hi,
Our team wants to get a coverage rate for a project by the test type,
We would like to understand what is the contribution of the UT and IT tests and also the combined coverage rate for the project.
IS there a way to get such daya from SonarQube server or from a SonarScanner?

We are using SonarQube 9.9

2

Hi,

Welcome to the community!

Sorry, but that’s just not available. We worked hard to give you an aggregate view of test coverage.

 
Ann

3

Hi @ganncamp,
I think that neither the author nor myself want an aggregated view of the coverage information. It is important to have a separated view of the coverage information (unit test, integration test) as these information is generated for a different software engineering processes. Hence, the coverage information have a different meaning.

According to the automotive SPICE process documentation a project should be developed with a V-Shaped process model. Classic coverage information is described in the SWE.4 (Software Unit Verification), which tests the software on an unit level with mocked interfaces. The next integration step is the SWE.5 (Software Integration / Test), which tests the software on a higher module based level possible with real interfaces in a test environment.

Both test levels can be verified in a pull-request scope with classic coverage generation tools executing the different test sets and generating different types of coverage reports. Therefore, it should be possible to show and vote on these coverage information independently.

This applies to all software programming languages like C++, python, …

Are you at least considering this feature? Sonarqube is made for enforcing my quality policies, but this software integration level is completely missing right now.

Best regards
Pieter

6

Hi @PieterBunnenberg ,

We are looking at how we can expand our support for test coverage use cases. Seeing information split out by test type/phase is something that we have in the discussion.

I hadn’t realised that this level of detail was specified in the SPICE process. This extra information is very helpful, thank you!

We’ll feed this into our discussion. I’m afraid I don’t have any view on what we will be doing in this space or when at the moment.

John