groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
Subject Re: Groovy and code coverage
Date Mon, 25 Sep 2017 13:45:48 GMT
+1 on the idea in general, obviously there's a few more details to work out
yet. I have some similar concerns to Cédric but I guess we can address
those as we go.

Cheers, Paul.

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Andres Almiray <aalmiray@gmail.com> wrote:

> BTW, I met with a couple of SonarSource engineers last week in Geneva
> during a presentation at Geneva JUG.
> The topic of code coverage with JaCoCo and Groovy came up. They told me a
> feature such as the one discussed in this thread would help them greatly in
> getting better code coverage numbers.
>
> Cheers,
> Andres
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast
> http://andresalmiray.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray
> --
> What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator.
> There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary,
> and those who don't.
> To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Andres Almiray <aalmiray@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You hit the nail right on the head Jochen wrt synthetic methods. And as
>> you correctly pointed out, not all transformations need to be updated right
>> away. I wanted to lay out a set of tasks we must take into consideration
>> should this feature be accepted.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andres
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast
>> http://andresalmiray.com
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray
>> --
>> What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator.
>> There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary,
>> and those who don't.
>> To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08.09.2017 15:04, Andres Almiray wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately that annotation is coming in JDK9. We'll need something
>>>> that can be used with JDK7
>>>>
>>>
>>> actually that would not be a problem. If the annotation is not found it
>>> is ignored by the java compiler. The source retention policy though is a
>>> very good reason not to use it. So we have to roll our own.
>>>
>>> I am +1 on the idea in general.... doesn´t mean all transforms have to
>>> do it right away.
>>>
>>> bye Jochen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message