Hi VELO, I have attached both solutions to issue 334. I have not included any exclusion capabilities.
Thanks, Daniel On Aug 27, 10:12 am, Marvin Froeder <[email protected]> wrote: > Nice idea... > > A exclusion path indeed may prove very useful. > > VELO > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Daniel Teixeira > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Hi VELO, > > I have both solutions working (ie link report scanner and as3 class > > file scanner). The one thing that's missing is the ability to exclude > > class files from the coverage calculation. There are cases where I > > have 3rd party source packages included in my source path that I'd > > like to exclude from coverage. Should we provide an exclude option? > > > Thanks, > > Daniel > > > On Aug 26, 5:11 pm, Daniel Teixeira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Should the coverage calculation consider all source directories > > > (including those added by the build-helper plugin) or just the main > > > source directory? The default scanner (i.e., DirectoryScanner) > > > includes all source directories. > > > > Daniel > > > > On Aug 26, 11:17 am, Marvin Froeder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yeah, if it is on src/main/flex is must be take into coverage > > calculation. > > > > > VELO > > > > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:57 AM, DanielTeixeira > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > Do you mean you want to include files that are not in the compiled > > swf > > > > > link report? > > > > > > On Aug 26, 10:34 am, Marvin Froeder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I was thinking, may be the best approach is scan files, so I can > > use the > > > > > > include directive to ensure coverage on this inclusion classes.... > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:32 AM, DanielTeixeira > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > For the same reason Jesse mentioned above. > > > > > > > > Quoted from Jesse earlier in this thread: > > > > > > > > "The key point in the sample (so that you don't have to open it > > to > > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > the problem) is that it contains a class file with an AS3 include > > > > > > > directive. > > > > > > > Ie, the structure is as follows: > > > > > > > > - src/main/flex > > > > > > > - App.as (uses an "include" to bring in sampleInclude.as) > > > > > > > - sampleInclude.as > > > > > > > > With the packaging set to swf, and the sourceFile set to App.as, > > the > > > > > > > "compile" operation performs correctly. However, "test" attempts > > to > > > > > > > compile > > > > > > > both App.as and sampleInclude.as separately. This fails, as > > > > > > > sampleInclude.as is only intended to be included in other files > > (never > > > > > > > compiled by itself directly)." > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 10:24 am, Marvin Froeder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Just to remind me, why shouldn't it compile all files? > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:06 AM, DanielTeixeira > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jesse/VELO, > > > > > > > > > Any updates with the link report scanner? I encountered this > > same > > > > > > > > > issue so I decided to write a LinkReportScanner that extends > > the > > > > > > > > > existing functionality of the DirectoryScanner and adds the > > ability > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > just include the as/mxml files that are specified in the link > > > > > report > > > > > > > > > (as discussed in this thread). It's a simple solution but it > > > > > works. > > > > > > > > > I will attach the changes to the issue ticket if you guys > > haven't > > > > > > > > > already started working on an "official" solution. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 4:11 pm, Marvin Froeder <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I will apply it right away.... I may got to the file > > thing > > > > > in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > future, but for sure not gonna happen anytime soon, so it > > is > > > > > likely > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > change will be there for ever =D > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Jesse Sightler < > > > > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't really see how it would be slower than reading > > and > > > > > parsing > > > > > > > > > hundreds > > > > > > > > > > > (if not thousands) of separate files. It also brings in > > the > > > > > issue > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > parsing as code to accurately determine if it includes > > > > > classes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Honestly, I'd greatly prefer a link-report based solution > > to > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > > based on guessing the files used. I don't really care > > about > > > > > > > coverage > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > files that aren't in the SWF anyway. :) Really, I could > > see > > > > > where > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > people would prefer to have both options available to > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I send a prototype of this approach (link-report > > parsing), > > > > > would > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > likely to get considered for inclusion? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > Jess > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Marvin Froeder < > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> link-report would be more accurate (I guess), but it > > would be > > > > > > > slower > > > > > > > > > > >> (parsing xml) and still my left classes behind..... test > > code > > > > > > > coverage > > > > > > > > > > >> should check coverage of all classes, not only the used > > by the > > > > > > > > > APP..... > > > > > > > > > > > >> This advanced scanner (as a configurable thing) I'm more > > > > > willing > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > >> include on flexmojos. > > > > > > > > > > > >> VELO > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Jesse Sightler < > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think that could work for most cases. I'm wondering, > > > > > though... > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > >>> that actually be easier than a link-report scanner? It > > seems > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > >>> would be the most accurate way to do it. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In any case, I do think that it would work for us. It > > would > > > > > > > force us > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > >>> remove some non-compilable class files, but I don't > > really > > > > > see > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > as a bad > > > > > > > > > > >>> thing. :) > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > >>> Jess > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Marvin Froeder < > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Ithink a better approach would be an advanced class > > > > > scanner... > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > >>>> checks if the .as file is a class, probably just check > > for > > > > > class > > > > > > > > > keyword > > > > > > > > > > >>>> presence.... > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Sent from DROID > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Em 26/07/2010 23:09, "Jesse Sightler" < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >escreveu: > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> LOL, that is fine. At least the attached patch there > > gets > > > > > us > > > > > > > past > > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > > >>>> problem for now. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We look forward to seeing a more official solution as > > well. > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Jess > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Marvin Froeder < > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > You did convinced me this need an different > > approach, you > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > didn't > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> convinced me that the sugg... > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> -- > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > You received this message because you are > > subscribed to > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > Google > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > Groups "Flex Mojos" group. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > ... > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -- > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed > > to the > > > > > > > Google > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Groups "Flex Mojos" group. > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To... > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -- > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed > > to the > > > > > > > Google > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Groups "Flex Mojos" group. > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To post to this group, send email to > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > > > > > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > > > > > > > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > > > > > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > > > > > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > > > > > > > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > <flex-mojos%[email protected]<flex-mojos%[email protected]> > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Flex Mojos" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/flex-mojos http://flexmojos.sonatype.org/
