commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Herbert <alex.d.herb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: False coverage decrease accusations by Coveralls
Date Wed, 03 Jul 2019 09:19:33 GMT


> 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
> 


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message