commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Heinrich Bohne <heinrich.bo...@gmx.at>
Subject Re: False coverage decrease accusations by Coveralls
Date Wed, 03 Jul 2019 09:35:21 GMT
But the detailed report you linked to is exactly where I got the
information about what existing lines have (purportedly) been uncovered
from. It's true that the master branch changed in the meantime, but
those commits only concerned formatting and changing the field
serialVersionUID in BigFraction and Fraction. I don't understand exactly
what this variable is for, but I doubt that it has something to do with
the respective lines now being uncovered. In fact, the corresponding
build https://coveralls.io/builds/24338122 lists the two files
BigFraction.java and Fraction.java under the menu "COVERAGE CHANGED",
but it doesn't actually report any change in coverage, so maybe this has
something to do with the bug.

On 7/3/19 11:19 AM, Alex Herbert wrote:
>
>> On 3 Jul 2019, at 09:38, Heinrich Bohne <heinrich.bohne@gmx.at> wrote:
>>
>> So this is the second time this happens to me. I've submitted a pull
>> request ( https://github.com/apache/commons-numbers/pull/63 ), and the
>> Coveralls reports says that several existing lines have been uncovered,
>> which is a lie, because the lines purportedly "uncovered" were already
>> not covered in the master branch (specifically the method
>> BigFraction.toString(), and, in the class Fraction, some lines in
>> addSub(Fraction, boolean), toString(), zero(), one() and parse(String)).
>> Something should probably be done about this, but I don't know the right
>> place where to report this.
>>
> You can click on the Coveralls badge on Github to get the detailed report of what changed:
>
> https://coveralls.io/builds/24338717 <https://coveralls.io/builds/24338717>
>
> This requires a bit of digesting. It seems to have been confused by the removal of lots
of lines and addition of lines to the same file. It thinks you have  19 new lines covered
and 2 extra lines missed in BigFraction.
>
> Did you rebase your change against master? Perhaps the reference master it is comparing
to is slightly different.
>
> If you care then you could run locally with Jacoco.
>
> What my inspection does show is that a lot of edge cases are not being covered by tests
(divide by zero, addition of zero, etc). This is more important to fix.
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message