On 03/07/2019 12:00, Heinrich Bohne wrote:
I think we are talking about two completely different issues here. I am
aware that 2 of my newly introduced lines (the IllegalArgumentException
cases you mentioned) are not covered. These are argument validations
inside private methods, so they should never be reached, as you
correctly assumed.
What I meant, however, is, for example, the method
BigFraction.toString(). According to Coveralls, my pull request caused
several lines inside this method that were previously covered to be
uncovered. But both https://coveralls.io/builds/24307694 (which seems to
be the version of the master branch upon which the comparison in the
report for my pull request is based) and
https://coveralls.io/builds/24338122 (which is the current version of
master) already list these lines as uncovered, so my pull request did
uncover these lines in BigFraction.toString(), contrary to what the
Coverall report says.
Here are the links that directly point to the relevant lines in the
report for BigFraction:
https://coveralls.io/builds/24338717/source?filename=commons-numbers-fraction%2Fsrc%2Fmain%2Fjava%2Forg%2Fapache%2Fcommons%2Fnumbers%2Ffraction%2FBigFraction.java#L1273
(my pull request)
https://coveralls.io/builds/24307694/source?filename=commons-numbers-fraction/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/numbers/fraction/BigFraction.java#L1128
(the master version against which my pull request was compared)
https://coveralls.io/builds/24338122/source?filename=commons-numbers-fraction/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/numbers/fraction/BigFraction.java#L1127
(the current master version)
OK I see. You are not disputing the overall coverage but the report on
what has been uncovered. So Coveralls cannot link back to the previous
coverage report where they were also not covered. It is a bug to raise
with Coveralls; or not worry about it.
On 7/3/19 12:32 PM, Alex Herbert wrote:
On 03/07/2019 10:35, Heinrich Bohne wrote:
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.
Your changes made:
commons-numbers-fraction: 88.31% to 88.41%
Overall: 2673 of 2836 (94.252%) to 2692 of 2857 (94.22%)
This issue is that although you increased coverage in
commons-numbers-fraction because the increase is lower than the
average across all modules you get an overall lowering of total
coverage.
Your new changes have 40/42 (95.24%) coverage. This is below the
previous overall average so the score is lower.
The two missed lines are in your new functions toFloatingPointBits and
roundAndRightShift which have an uncovered IllegalArgumentException
edge case. Are these ever possible to hit? If not then you should put
in a message for the exception, for example "Internal error: Please
file a bug report".
This should make it clear that the exception is not meant to be
possible but the assertion it makes is a requirement for the rest of
the function to work.
On 7/3/19 11:19 AM, Alex Herbert wrote:
On 3 Jul 2019, at 09:38, Heinrich Bohne <heinrich.bo...@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-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
