Unit test coverage missing from upgrade 4.1 to 4.51

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Unit test coverage missing from upgrade 4.1 to 4.51

mattadamson

All,

 

We noticed this since Sonar 4.1 indicated

 

cid:A136379A-55A1-4412-8144-45BF2AB55068

 

Sonar 4.51 shows blank for coverage

 

cid:27F5EB3A-C606-41A2-A487-1CB638B5A55C

 

Any initial thoughts?

 

Thanks

 

Matt

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unit test coverage missing from upgrade 4.1 to 4.51

David RACODON
Hi Matt,

What is the log saying about importing test coverage reports?

Regards,

David RACODON
Freelance QA Consultant

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Adamson, Matthew <[hidden email]> wrote:

All,

 

We noticed this since Sonar 4.1 indicated

 

cid:A136379A-55A1-4412-8144-45BF2AB55068

 

Sonar 4.51 shows blank for coverage

 

cid:27F5EB3A-C606-41A2-A487-1CB638B5A55C

 

Any initial thoughts?

 

Thanks

 

Matt

 

 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Unit test coverage missing from upgrade 4.1 to 4.51

mattadamson

Thanks David,

 

Do you know which specific area of the logs you’re referring to? I actually have debug / verbose level enabled. I see entries such as this

 

[DEBUG] [04:30:16.744] Decorators: ManualMeasureDecorator -> QProfileDecorator -> org.sonar.issuesreport.tree.ResourceTree@458e659a -> SumDuplicationsDecorator -> org.sonar.plugins.core.issue.IssueTrackingDecorator@7b08523 -> UnitTestDecorator -> org.sonar.plugins.core.security.ApplyProjectRolesDecorator@55f4c0c6 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.DirectoriesDecorator@45c6894f -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.FilesDecorator@6d60c552 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.TimeMachineConfigurationPersister@629b6419 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewCoverageFileAnalyzer@6c3ac297 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewItCoverageFileAnalyzer@5bd7f04 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewOverallCoverageFileAnalyzer@5bdde28d -> org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewCoverageAggregator@4444c619 -> org.sonar.plugins.design.batch.ProjectDsmDecorator@47c8d7e2 -> FileTangleIndexDecorator -> f(lines) -> f(generated_lines) -> f(ncloc) -> f(generated_ncloc) -> f(classes) -> f(packages) -> f(functions) -> f(accessors) -> f(statements) -> f(public_api) -> f(comment_lines) -> f(comment_blank_lines) -> f(public_undocumented_api) -> f(commented_out_code_lines) -> f(complexity) -> f(complexity_in_classes) -> f(complexity_in_functions) -> f(class_complexity_distribution) -> f(function_complexity_distribution) -> f(file_complexity_distribution) -> f(lines_to_cover) -> f(uncovered_lines) -> f(conditions_to_cover) -> f(uncovered_conditions) -> f(it_lines_to_cover) -> f(it_uncovered_lines) -> f(it_conditions_to_cover) -> f(it_uncovered_conditions) -> f(overall_lines_to_cover) -> f(overall_uncovered_lines) -> f(overall_conditions_to_cover) -> f(overall_uncovered_conditions) -> f(rfc) -> f(rfc_distribution) -> f(lcom4_distribution) -> f(package_cycles) -> f(package_tangles) -> f(package_feedback_edges) -> f(package_edges_weight) -> f(new_lines_to_cover) -> f(new_uncovered_lines) -> f(new_conditions_to_cover) -> f(new_uncovered_conditions) -> f(new_it_lines_to_cover) -> f(new_it_uncovered_lines) -> f(new_it_conditions_to_cover) -> f(new_it_uncovered_conditions) -> f(new_overall_lines_to_cover) -> f(new_overall_uncovered_lines) -> f(new_overall_conditions_to_cover) -> f(new_overall_uncovered_conditions) -> QProfileEventsDecorator -> org.sonar.batch.language.LanguageDistributionDecorator@5a827829 -> org.sonar.batch.debt.DebtDecorator@2b9efa2b -> org.sonar.batch.debt.NewDebtDecorator@523a336c -> org.sonar.plugins.cpd.decorators.DuplicationDensityDecorator@4e37cb5c -> CountUnresolvedIssuesDecorator -> CountFalsePositivesDecorator -> CommentDensityDecorator -> PackageTangleIndexDecorator -> f(file_complexity) -> f(class_complexity) -> f(function_complexity) -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.CoverageDecorator@1b460866 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.LineCoverageDecorator@12d16e87 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.BranchCoverageDecorator@73af6ab7 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.ItLineCoverageDecorator@369b9792 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.ItCoverageDecorator@20fc0e40 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.ItBranchCoverageDecorator@40b9cab -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.OverallLineCoverageDecorator@165aa0a0 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.OverallCoverageDecorator@17e773d7 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.OverallBranchCoverageDecorator@5c663483 -> org.sonar.batch.debt.SqaleRatingDecorator@6b0621a0 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.TendencyDecorator@6fe8cb45 -> VariationDecorator

 

And then

 

org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.TimeMachineConfigurationPersister@74f1346b: 15ms

         org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewCoverageFileAnalyzer@3a799db5: 0ms

         org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewItCoverageFileAnalyzer@660f411: 0ms

         org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewOverallCoverageFileAnalyzer@47378b5c: 0ms

         org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewCoverageAggregator@f9e698b: 0ms

         org.sonar.plugins.design.batch.ProjectDsmDecorator@7a898c8: 0ms

 

This is repeated for each Maven module in our project

 

Thanks

 

From: David Racodon [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 07 January 2015 07:23
To: user
Subject: Re: [sonar-user] Unit test coverage missing from upgrade 4.1 to 4.51

 

Hi Matt,

 

What is the log saying about importing test coverage reports?

 

Regards,


David RACODON

Freelance QA Consultant

 

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Adamson, Matthew <[hidden email]> wrote:

All,

 

We noticed this since Sonar 4.1 indicated

 

cid:A136379A-55A1-4412-8144-45BF2AB55068

 

Sonar 4.51 shows blank for coverage

 

cid:27F5EB3A-C606-41A2-A487-1CB638B5A55C

 

Any initial thoughts?

 

Thanks

 

Matt

 

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unit test coverage missing from upgrade 4.1 to 4.51

David RACODON
Hi Matt,

What code coverage tool are you running?
For example, if you use JaCoCo, search for "JaCoCo" in the log and you should get some interesting information around.

Regards,


David RACODON
Freelance QA Consultant

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adamson, Matthew <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks David,

 

Do you know which specific area of the logs you’re referring to? I actually have debug / verbose level enabled. I see entries such as this

 

[DEBUG] [04:30:16.744] Decorators: ManualMeasureDecorator -> QProfileDecorator -> org.sonar.issuesreport.tree.ResourceTree@458e659a -> SumDuplicationsDecorator -> org.sonar.plugins.core.issue.IssueTrackingDecorator@7b08523 -> UnitTestDecorator -> org.sonar.plugins.core.security.ApplyProjectRolesDecorator@55f4c0c6 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.DirectoriesDecorator@45c6894f -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.FilesDecorator@6d60c552 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.TimeMachineConfigurationPersister@629b6419 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewCoverageFileAnalyzer@6c3ac297 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewItCoverageFileAnalyzer@5bd7f04 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewOverallCoverageFileAnalyzer@5bdde28d -> org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewCoverageAggregator@4444c619 -> org.sonar.plugins.design.batch.ProjectDsmDecorator@47c8d7e2 -> FileTangleIndexDecorator -> f(lines) -> f(generated_lines) -> f(ncloc) -> f(generated_ncloc) -> f(classes) -> f(packages) -> f(functions) -> f(accessors) -> f(statements) -> f(public_api) -> f(comment_lines) -> f(comment_blank_lines) -> f(public_undocumented_api) -> f(commented_out_code_lines) -> f(complexity) -> f(complexity_in_classes) -> f(complexity_in_functions) -> f(class_complexity_distribution) -> f(function_complexity_distribution) -> f(file_complexity_distribution) -> f(lines_to_cover) -> f(uncovered_lines) -> f(conditions_to_cover) -> f(uncovered_conditions) -> f(it_lines_to_cover) -> f(it_uncovered_lines) -> f(it_conditions_to_cover) -> f(it_uncovered_conditions) -> f(overall_lines_to_cover) -> f(overall_uncovered_lines) -> f(overall_conditions_to_cover) -> f(overall_uncovered_conditions) -> f(rfc) -> f(rfc_distribution) -> f(lcom4_distribution) -> f(package_cycles) -> f(package_tangles) -> f(package_feedback_edges) -> f(package_edges_weight) -> f(new_lines_to_cover) -> f(new_uncovered_lines) -> f(new_conditions_to_cover) -> f(new_uncovered_conditions) -> f(new_it_lines_to_cover) -> f(new_it_uncovered_lines) -> f(new_it_conditions_to_cover) -> f(new_it_uncovered_conditions) -> f(new_overall_lines_to_cover) -> f(new_overall_uncovered_lines) -> f(new_overall_conditions_to_cover) -> f(new_overall_uncovered_conditions) -> QProfileEventsDecorator -> org.sonar.batch.language.LanguageDistributionDecorator@5a827829 -> org.sonar.batch.debt.DebtDecorator@2b9efa2b -> org.sonar.batch.debt.NewDebtDecorator@523a336c -> org.sonar.plugins.cpd.decorators.DuplicationDensityDecorator@4e37cb5c -> CountUnresolvedIssuesDecorator -> CountFalsePositivesDecorator -> CommentDensityDecorator -> PackageTangleIndexDecorator -> f(file_complexity) -> f(class_complexity) -> f(function_complexity) -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.CoverageDecorator@1b460866 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.LineCoverageDecorator@12d16e87 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.BranchCoverageDecorator@73af6ab7 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.ItLineCoverageDecorator@369b9792 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.ItCoverageDecorator@20fc0e40 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.ItBranchCoverageDecorator@40b9cab -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.OverallLineCoverageDecorator@165aa0a0 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.OverallCoverageDecorator@17e773d7 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.sensors.OverallBranchCoverageDecorator@5c663483 -> org.sonar.batch.debt.SqaleRatingDecorator@6b0621a0 -> org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.TendencyDecorator@6fe8cb45 -> VariationDecorator

 

And then

 

org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.TimeMachineConfigurationPersister@74f1346b: 15ms

         org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewCoverageFileAnalyzer@3a799db5: 0ms

         org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewItCoverageFileAnalyzer@660f411: 0ms

         org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewOverallCoverageFileAnalyzer@47378b5c: 0ms

         org.sonar.plugins.core.timemachine.NewCoverageAggregator@f9e698b: 0ms

         org.sonar.plugins.design.batch.ProjectDsmDecorator@7a898c8: 0ms

 

This is repeated for each Maven module in our project

 

Thanks

 

From: David Racodon [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 07 January 2015 07:23
To: user
Subject: Re: [sonar-user] Unit test coverage missing from upgrade 4.1 to 4.51

 

Hi Matt,

 

What is the log saying about importing test coverage reports?

 

Regards,


David RACODON

Freelance QA Consultant

 

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Adamson, Matthew <[hidden email]> wrote:

All,

 

We noticed this since Sonar 4.1 indicated

 

cid:A136379A-55A1-4412-8144-45BF2AB55068

 

Sonar 4.51 shows blank for coverage

 

cid:27F5EB3A-C606-41A2-A487-1CB638B5A55C

 

Any initial thoughts?

 

Thanks

 

Matt

 

 

 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Unit test coverage missing from upgrade 4.1 to 4.51

mattadamson

Thanks isn’t it from this line

 

[INFO] [03:55:35.292] Sensor SurefireSensor...

[INFO] [03:55:35.293] parsing /home/builder/.jenkins/jobs/Sonar_451/workspace/ target/surefire-reports

[INFO] [03:55:36.202] Sensor SurefireSensor done: 910 ms

 

There are some entries for JaCoCo for IT however this is different to unit tests

 

[INFO] [03:55:36.202] Sensor JaCoCoItSensor...

[INFO] [03:55:37.191] Analysing /opt/build/jacoco/ IT.exec

[INFO] [03:55:39.709] No information about coverage per test.

[INFO] [03:55:39.710] Sensor JaCoCoItSensor done: 3508 ms

[INFO] [03:55:39.710] Sensor JaCoCoOverallSensor...

 

From: David Racodon [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 07 January 2015 13:23
To: user
Subject: Re: [sonar-user] Unit test coverage missing from upgrade 4.1 to 4.51

 

Hi Matt,

 

What code coverage tool are you running?

For example, if you use JaCoCo, search for "JaCoCo" in the log and you should get some interesting information around.

 

Regards,

 


David RACODON

Freelance QA Consultant

 

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adamson, Matthew <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks David,

 

Do you know which specific area of the logs you’re referring to? I actually have debug / verbose level enabled. I see entries such as this

 

[DEBUG] [04:30:16.744] Decorators: ManualMeasureDecorator -> QProfileDecorator -> [hidden email] -> SumDuplicationsDecorator -> [hidden email] -> UnitTestDecorator -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> FileTangleIndexDecorator -> f(lines) -> f(generated_lines) -> f(ncloc) -> f(generated_ncloc) -> f(classes) -> f(packages) -> f(functions) -> f(accessors) -> f(statements) -> f(public_api) -> f(comment_lines) -> f(comment_blank_lines) -> f(public_undocumented_api) -> f(commented_out_code_lines) -> f(complexity) -> f(complexity_in_classes) -> f(complexity_in_functions) -> f(class_complexity_distribution) -> f(function_complexity_distribution) -> f(file_complexity_distribution) -> f(lines_to_cover) -> f(uncovered_lines) -> f(conditions_to_cover) -> f(uncovered_conditions) -> f(it_lines_to_cover) -> f(it_uncovered_lines) -> f(it_conditions_to_cover) -> f(it_uncovered_conditions) -> f(overall_lines_to_cover) -> f(overall_uncovered_lines) -> f(overall_conditions_to_cover) -> f(overall_uncovered_conditions) -> f(rfc) -> f(rfc_distribution) -> f(lcom4_distribution) -> f(package_cycles) -> f(package_tangles) -> f(package_feedback_edges) -> f(package_edges_weight) -> f(new_lines_to_cover) -> f(new_uncovered_lines) -> f(new_conditions_to_cover) -> f(new_uncovered_conditions) -> f(new_it_lines_to_cover) -> f(new_it_uncovered_lines) -> f(new_it_conditions_to_cover) -> f(new_it_uncovered_conditions) -> f(new_overall_lines_to_cover) -> f(new_overall_uncovered_lines) -> f(new_overall_conditions_to_cover) -> f(new_overall_uncovered_conditions) -> QProfileEventsDecorator -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> CountUnresolvedIssuesDecorator -> CountFalsePositivesDecorator -> CommentDensityDecorator -> PackageTangleIndexDecorator -> f(file_complexity) -> f(class_complexity) -> f(function_complexity) -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> VariationDecorator

 

And then

 

[hidden email]: 15ms

         [hidden email]: 0ms

         [hidden email]: 0ms

         [hidden email]: 0ms

         [hidden email]: 0ms

         [hidden email]: 0ms

 

This is repeated for each Maven module in our project

 

Thanks

 

From: David Racodon [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 07 January 2015 07:23
To: user
Subject: Re: [sonar-user] Unit test coverage missing from upgrade 4.1 to 4.51

 

Hi Matt,

 

What is the log saying about importing test coverage reports?

 

Regards,


David RACODON

Freelance QA Consultant

 

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Adamson, Matthew <[hidden email]> wrote:

All,

 

We noticed this since Sonar 4.1 indicated

 

cid:A136379A-55A1-4412-8144-45BF2AB55068

 

Sonar 4.51 shows blank for coverage

 

cid:27F5EB3A-C606-41A2-A487-1CB638B5A55C

 

Any initial thoughts?

 

Thanks

 

Matt

 

 

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unit test coverage missing from upgrade 4.1 to 4.51

David RACODON
Hi Matt,

Thanks isn’t it from this line
 
[INFO] [03:55:35.292] Sensor SurefireSensor...
[INFO] [03:55:35.293] parsing /home/builder/.jenkins/jobs/Sonar_451/workspace/ target/surefire-reports
[INFO] [03:55:36.202] Sensor SurefireSensor done: 910 ms

Nope. The Surefire reports feed the "unit test success" section and it works fine on your side. 

 

There are some entries for JaCoCo for IT however this is different to unit tests
 
[INFO] [03:55:36.202] Sensor JaCoCoItSensor...
[INFO] [03:55:37.191] Analysing /opt/build/jacoco/ IT.exec
[INFO] [03:55:39.709] No information about coverage per test.
[INFO] [03:55:39.710] Sensor JaCoCoItSensor done: 3508 ms
[INFO] [03:55:39.710] Sensor JaCoCoOverallSensor...

This is about code coverage by unit tests. So your issue is around JaCoCo and SonarQube. Could you please provide your SonarQube configuration and the full log of the analysis?

Thank you

Regards, 

David RACODON
Freelance QA Consultant

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Adamson, Matthew <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks isn’t it from this line

 

[INFO] [03:55:35.292] Sensor SurefireSensor...

[INFO] [03:55:35.293] parsing /home/builder/.jenkins/jobs/Sonar_451/workspace/ target/surefire-reports

[INFO] [03:55:36.202] Sensor SurefireSensor done: 910 ms

 

There are some entries for JaCoCo for IT however this is different to unit tests

 

[INFO] [03:55:36.202] Sensor JaCoCoItSensor...

[INFO] [03:55:37.191] Analysing /opt/build/jacoco/ IT.exec

[INFO] [03:55:39.709] No information about coverage per test.

[INFO] [03:55:39.710] Sensor JaCoCoItSensor done: 3508 ms

[INFO] [03:55:39.710] Sensor JaCoCoOverallSensor...

 

From: David Racodon [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 07 January 2015 13:23


To: user
Subject: Re: [sonar-user] Unit test coverage missing from upgrade 4.1 to 4.51

 

Hi Matt,

 

What code coverage tool are you running?

For example, if you use JaCoCo, search for "JaCoCo" in the log and you should get some interesting information around.

 

Regards,

 


David RACODON

Freelance QA Consultant

 

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adamson, Matthew <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks David,

 

Do you know which specific area of the logs you’re referring to? I actually have debug / verbose level enabled. I see entries such as this

 

[DEBUG] [04:30:16.744] Decorators: ManualMeasureDecorator -> QProfileDecorator -> [hidden email] -> SumDuplicationsDecorator -> [hidden email] -> UnitTestDecorator -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> FileTangleIndexDecorator -> f(lines) -> f(generated_lines) -> f(ncloc) -> f(generated_ncloc) -> f(classes) -> f(packages) -> f(functions) -> f(accessors) -> f(statements) -> f(public_api) -> f(comment_lines) -> f(comment_blank_lines) -> f(public_undocumented_api) -> f(commented_out_code_lines) -> f(complexity) -> f(complexity_in_classes) -> f(complexity_in_functions) -> f(class_complexity_distribution) -> f(function_complexity_distribution) -> f(file_complexity_distribution) -> f(lines_to_cover) -> f(uncovered_lines) -> f(conditions_to_cover) -> f(uncovered_conditions) -> f(it_lines_to_cover) -> f(it_uncovered_lines) -> f(it_conditions_to_cover) -> f(it_uncovered_conditions) -> f(overall_lines_to_cover) -> f(overall_uncovered_lines) -> f(overall_conditions_to_cover) -> f(overall_uncovered_conditions) -> f(rfc) -> f(rfc_distribution) -> f(lcom4_distribution) -> f(package_cycles) -> f(package_tangles) -> f(package_feedback_edges) -> f(package_edges_weight) -> f(new_lines_to_cover) -> f(new_uncovered_lines) -> f(new_conditions_to_cover) -> f(new_uncovered_conditions) -> f(new_it_lines_to_cover) -> f(new_it_uncovered_lines) -> f(new_it_conditions_to_cover) -> f(new_it_uncovered_conditions) -> f(new_overall_lines_to_cover) -> f(new_overall_uncovered_lines) -> f(new_overall_conditions_to_cover) -> f(new_overall_uncovered_conditions) -> QProfileEventsDecorator -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> CountUnresolvedIssuesDecorator -> CountFalsePositivesDecorator -> CommentDensityDecorator -> PackageTangleIndexDecorator -> f(file_complexity) -> f(class_complexity) -> f(function_complexity) -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> [hidden email] -> VariationDecorator

 

And then

 

[hidden email]: 15ms

         [hidden email]: 0ms

         [hidden email]: 0ms

         [hidden email]: 0ms

         [hidden email]: 0ms

         [hidden email]: 0ms

 

This is repeated for each Maven module in our project

 

Thanks

 

From: David Racodon [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 07 January 2015 07:23
To: user
Subject: Re: [sonar-user] Unit test coverage missing from upgrade 4.1 to 4.51

 

Hi Matt,

 

What is the log saying about importing test coverage reports?

 

Regards,


David RACODON

Freelance QA Consultant

 

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Adamson, Matthew <[hidden email]> wrote:

All,

 

We noticed this since Sonar 4.1 indicated

 

cid:A136379A-55A1-4412-8144-45BF2AB55068

 

Sonar 4.51 shows blank for coverage

 

cid:27F5EB3A-C606-41A2-A487-1CB638B5A55C

 

Any initial thoughts?

 

Thanks

 

Matt