Unable to get Jacoco to work with Powermockito using offline instrumentation

Question

Given that Jacoco doesn\'t play nicely with PowerMockito when instrumenting \"on the fly\", I\'ve been trying to configure offline instrumentation in the hope this will give

Answer 1

I have tried these versions of the below softwares; they work together and generate the jacoco report without any extra effort. I use the gradle build tool with powermock, mockito and wiremock.

powermock-api-mockito2:2.0.2
powermock-module-junit4:2.0.2
gradle 5.6.2

The above correctly generates the jacoco coverage report.

Answer 2

Code Coverage with JaCoCo explained the reason

The simplest way to use JaCoCo it is — on-the-fly instrumentation with using JaCoCo Java Agent. In this case a class in modified when it is being loaded. You can just run you application with JaCoCo agent and a code coverage is calculated. This way is used by Eclemma and Intellij Idea. But there is a big issue. PowerMock instruments classes also. Javassist is used to modify classes. The main issue is that Javassist reads classes from disk and all JaCoCo changes are disappeared. As result zero code coverage for classes witch are loaded by PowerMock class loader.

We are going to replace Javassist with ByteBuddy (#727) and it should help to resolve this old issue. But right now there is NO WAY TO USE PowerMock with JaCoCo On-the-fly instrumentation. And no workaround to get code coverage in IDE.

JaCoCo Offline Instrumentation can solve this problem. The sample of Offline Instrumentation fixed my problem .

Answer 3

I saw the same behavior, though after following the thread on the GitHub issue it seems to be fixed in 1.6.5, which proved true for me.

Hopefully this will save someone a headache later :).

Working configuration with:

• jacoco-maven-plugin 0.7.7.201606060606
• powermock 1.6.5

I am not using offline instrumentation.

Answer 4

I was also facing the same issue. I was able to generate report partially. I have used both these tags for my test cases @RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class) @PrepareForTest({}). And the report was not getting generated for the test cases where i used the above mentioned tags. But for one of the test case there was only this tag @RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class). Somehow the report was getting generated for that case. And also i have never used offline instrumentation. When i tried using the offline instrumentation i was getting error saying that the class was already instrumented. I tried various scenarios and followed various links but could not generate the report. Finally as per the above comment i upgraded my version of powermock from 1.5.5 to 1.6.5 and i was able to generate the report. Following is my pom.xml entry

     <plugin>
    <groupId>org.jacoco</groupId>
    <artifactId>jacoco-maven-plugin</artifactId>
    <version>0.7.5.201505241946</version>
    <executions>
        <execution>
            <id>pre-unit-test</id>
            <goals>
                <goal>prepare-agent</goal>
            </goals>
             <configuration>
                    <!-- Sets the path to the file which contains the execution data. -->
                    <destFile>${basedir}/target/jacoco.exec</destFile>
                    <!--
                        Sets the name of the property containing the settings
                        for JaCoCo runtime agent.
                    -->
            </configuration>
        </execution>
        <execution>
            <!--<id>post-unit-test</id>
            <phase>test</phase>-->
            <id>default-report</id>
            <phase>verify</phase>
            <goals>
                <goal>report</goal>
            </goals>
              <configuration>
                <!-- Sets the path to the file which contains the execution data. -->
                <dataFile>${basedir}/target/jacoco.exec</dataFile>
                <!-- Sets the output directory for the code coverage report. -->
                <outputDirectory>${basedir}/target/jacoco-ut</outputDirectory>
            </configuration>
        </execution>
    </executions>
</plugin>

Following is my entry in pom .xml for maven-surefire-plugin

    <plugin>
        <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
        <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
      <configuration>
            <argLine>@{argLine}</argLine>
            <skipTests>false</skipTests>
            <testFailureIgnore>true</testFailureIgnore>
        </configuration>
    </plugin>

@{argLine} was set as a property

<properties>
    <argLine>-noverify -Xms512m -Xmx1024m -XX:PermSize=128m -XX:MaxPermSize=512m</argLine>
</properties>

And upgraded my powermock version from 1.5.5 to 1.6.5 . Finally i could see my report generation for the classes where i used the following tags in my test cases @RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class) @PrepareForTest({})

Answer 5

I used Jacoco offline instrumentation and after execution of test restore ed original classes with help of "restore-instrumented-classes" goal. My JaCoCo configuration look like this:

 <plugin>
    <groupId>org.jacoco</groupId>
    <artifactId>jacoco-maven-plugin</artifactId>
    <version>0.7.9</version>
    <executions>
      <execution>
        <id>default-prepare-agent</id>
        <goals>
          <goal>prepare-agent</goal>
        </goals>
      </execution>
      <execution>
        <id>jacoco-instrument</id>
        <goals>
          <goal>instrument</goal>
        </goals>
      </execution>
      <execution>
        <id>jacoco-restore-instrumented-classes</id>
        <goals>
          <goal>restore-instrumented-classes</goal>
        </goals>
      </execution>
      <execution>
        <id>jacoco-report</id>
        <phase>package</phase>
        <goals>
          <goal>report</goal>
        </goals>
      </execution>
    </executions>
    <configuration>
      <excludes>
        <exclude>*</exclude>
      </excludes>
    </configuration>
  </plugin>

Answer 6

I had same issue with JaCoCo On-the-fly and PowerMock. 0% code coverage was generated every time

Found out that JaCoCo version 0.7.7.201606060606 and PowerMock version 1.6.2 are compatible and code coverage is generated successfully.