On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 9:57:53 AM UTC-7, Evgeny Mandrikov wrote: > Hi, > > > Maybe there is a bit of misunderstanding: indeed there was a change in 0.7.3 > - classes without source location ignored, but version 0.7.6 introduces > option "inclnolocationclasses" to control this behavior. See > http://www.eclemma.org/jacoco/trunk/doc/changes.html > > > Hope this helps. > > > Best regards, > Evgeny > > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 1:00:04 PM UTC+2, Marc R. Hoffmann wrote:Hi, > > > > exclusion of dynamically generated classes only applies to runtime. For > > report generation these classes have never been shown. So I don't think > > this causes the difference. > > > > When you compare both reports please drill down to a specific class > > where you see differences and show differences here (e.g. with > > screenshots). > > > > Regards, > > -marc > > > > > > On 2016-10-21 00:05, john.mak wrote: > > > When doing on-the-fly instrumentation and reporting on the same > > > code/test run I noticed that the coverage % dropped starting in JaCoCo > > > 0.7.3. It seem like it was due to a new feature that excluded > > > dynamically generated classes. Is there an option to disable this > > > feature? If not I will be stuck using 0.7.2. Thanks.
Hi Evgeny, thanks for the reply but looking at this again the classes that showed 0% coverage are not dynamically generated classes and they have source locations. So the cause of this issue is something else. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JaCoCo and EclEmma Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jacoco/5487b758-2a7a-4d59-b6db-a56a53d22e75%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
