Vladimir
Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
The current reports don't provide code source linking. Are you going to
add it?
There were no information for 'security' and 'auth' modules, but, I have
updated the pages and now there is source code linking for all modules.
One more issue to discuss: excluded classes present in the coverage table
now with 0 coverage. May be it is more convenient do not have these
classes
in coverage tables at all? In this case one won't wonder why the class
has 0
coverage - go to exclude list to look at the class and decide whether the
class is really untested or just excluded from coverage, instead, all
really
uncovered classes will be shown with 0 coverage, if a class is missed in
coverage table – it is in exclude list.
+1 for current "0 coverage" is not convenient. But if we can remove them
from the report, how about just mark them in another way? say, mark the
excluded class with different background colors?
At least people don't need to care about two documents for one package.
Thanks,
Vladimir
Now I have 2 questions/ issues to discuss:
> 1) preferable VM to calculate coverage (seems, the exclude list is a
> little
> bit different for j9 and drlvm)
If the only difference is the exclude list then I'd suggest using VM
with
the shortest one. :-)
2) preferable sorting mode for results (by name, by blocks or by
methods)
IMHO, sorting by name looks more natural.
Thanks,
Stepan.
Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
> <SNIP>
>
------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
