Menu
▾
▴
cobertura-featurerequests — Automated emails from our feature request tracking system
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2007 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(2) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
|
Dec
(2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(5) |
May
(1) |
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(7) |
Aug
(4) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(6) |
Dec
(7) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(4) |
Apr
(2) |
May
(16) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(2) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(4) |
Apr
(1) |
May
(1) |
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(7) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
|
Oct
(2) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
| 2011 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
(1) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
|
Aug
(2) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
| 2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(4) |
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(2) |
| 2013 |
Jan
|
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2017 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Springer I, C. J <chr...@lm...> - 2017-04-20 20:12:36
|
Greetings Cobertura developers, My team is using Cobertura as a post-build action of our periodic Jenkins build to view unit test coverage reports for our entire code base. The problem is, we have 3 separate repositories, and they are all being merged into a single coverage report, generating inaccurate results. There are cross-repository references, so when something in repository1 is used by repository2, but not tested in repository2, it gets marked as untested code. However, this is not true because we are testing that code from within repository1, and don't want to be testing the same thing twice. Is there a way to generate 3 separate unit test code coverage reports for each individual repository? Thanks! Chris Springer Associate Member Engineering Staff Software Engineer Lockheed Martin, Rotary & Mission Systems 199 Borton Landing Road | Moorestown, NJ 08057-0927 | Mail Stop: 760-2-D402 Office: 856-359-1364 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2013-04-10 06:08:12
|
Feature Requests item #3562387, was opened at 2012-08-28 00:26 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3562387&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Roberto Lo Giacco (rlogiacco) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Add maven artifact for coberturaFlush.war Initial Comment: Currently there's no Maven artifact that can be used to retrieve the Cobertura WAR used to flush the code coverage statistics for web applications. I suggest you make this artifact available so that a completely automated build lifecycle can be achieved with Maven. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2013-04-09 23:08 Message: Today, I went to the beachfront with my kids. I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said "You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear." She placed the shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is entirely off topic but I had to tell someone! [url=http://www.performancenotes.com/index.php/member/144007/]Fae Timson[/url] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2012-11-24 23:14 Message: Some genuinely nice stuff on this website , I love it. <a href="http://en.netlog.com/mainardokold/blog/blogid=14178714" title="Involving">Involving</a> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3562387&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2013-04-06 02:22:04
|
Feature Requests item #3605393, was opened at 2013-02-20 01:14 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by christ66 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3605393&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Cobertura dead status Initial Comment: With two years without a single commit, it appears Cobertura is a dead project. Therefore, this request : could you update the Cobertura website to clearly show that Cobertura is no longer maintained and won't be updated anymore - if it is really the case? Thanks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Steven Christou (christ66) Date: 2013-04-05 19:22 Message: Cobertura is not dead yet. I have been working on several improvements. Currently I have forked the cobertura code to github (https://github.com/cobertura/cobertura) to hopefully allow for more community involvement. Commits are made on my local branch and my local machine so far but nothing has been pushed yet to trunk the master instance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3605393&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2013-03-13 04:41:12
|
Feature Requests item #3098010, was opened at 2010-10-29 00:32 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3098010&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: lindsal (lindsal) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: A way to ignore certain methods/lines in report Initial Comment: I have been using cobertura for around a month, so am a relative newbie. A feature I would find very useful is a way to distinguish between (a) untested code that I know about and have decided not to test and (b) untested code that I plan to write tests for. Is there way to do this other than at the class level? If not, I thought a simple way to implement this might be to have a plain text file listing things to ignore. The syntax could something like the following: package.ClassName //ignore whole class package.ClassName.main //ignore main method **.set* //ignore all setter methods in all classes file:package/ClassName.java:20,50,56 //ignore lines 20, 50, 56 in file file:package/ClassName.java:"a = b || c;" //ignore line(s) matching the expression in quotes in file file:**/*.java:assert** //ignore assertions in all files Then in the coverage report, there could be two extra categories: covered ignored and uncovered ignored (which perhaps could be shaded grey). Best, Luke ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2013-03-12 21:41 Message: i cannot say the my good outcome is because the 2 diet pills lingzhi http://udaydiets.cocolog-nifty.com/, due to the fact i generally doing exercise and have good diet regime , but i do really feel differnce just after taking the pill. and weight be lowered more rapidly than usual, as well as it provides me much more energy. i actually like it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Guile (sunguilin) Date: 2012-12-18 02:37 Message: +1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: John McCabe (john_g_mccabe) Date: 2012-10-12 08:36 Message: I agree with the need; this would be particularly useful for private constructors. There's a workaround described at http://blog.paulhildebrand.nl/java/163/improve-code-coverage-on-private-cronstructors-with-cobertura but it's a little untidy. An extension to the existing ignore tag in the ANT task might work. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: songjie dong (dongsj) Date: 2010-11-15 18:34 Message: maybe we could have another mode for instrument because tree pattern would be better for complex ignore rule, what about you guys？ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3098010&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2013-02-20 09:14:32
|
Feature Requests item #3605393, was opened at 2013-02-20 01:14 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3605393&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Cobertura dead status Initial Comment: With two years without a single commit, it appears Cobertura is a dead project. Therefore, this request : could you update the Cobertura website to clearly show that Cobertura is no longer maintained and won't be updated anymore - if it is really the case? Thanks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3605393&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2013-02-13 09:01:00
|
Feature Requests item #3098010, was opened at 2010-10-29 00:32 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3098010&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: lindsal (lindsal) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: A way to ignore certain methods/lines in report Initial Comment: I have been using cobertura for around a month, so am a relative newbie. A feature I would find very useful is a way to distinguish between (a) untested code that I know about and have decided not to test and (b) untested code that I plan to write tests for. Is there way to do this other than at the class level? If not, I thought a simple way to implement this might be to have a plain text file listing things to ignore. The syntax could something like the following: package.ClassName //ignore whole class package.ClassName.main //ignore main method **.set* //ignore all setter methods in all classes file:package/ClassName.java:20,50,56 //ignore lines 20, 50, 56 in file file:package/ClassName.java:"a = b || c;" //ignore line(s) matching the expression in quotes in file file:**/*.java:assert** //ignore assertions in all files Then in the coverage report, there could be two extra categories: covered ignored and uncovered ignored (which perhaps could be shaded grey). Best, Luke ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2013-02-13 01:00 Message: iWSDcA <a href="http://csqblxnikfoc.com/">csqblxnikfoc</a>, [url=http://szjbcgdyiwoe.com/]szjbcgdyiwoe[/url], [link=http://lymvumqroppu.com/]lymvumqroppu[/link], http://dlwxmkizvtwt.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Guile (sunguilin) Date: 2012-12-18 02:37 Message: +1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: John McCabe (john_g_mccabe) Date: 2012-10-12 08:36 Message: I agree with the need; this would be particularly useful for private constructors. There's a workaround described at http://blog.paulhildebrand.nl/java/163/improve-code-coverage-on-private-cronstructors-with-cobertura but it's a little untidy. An extension to the existing ignore tag in the ANT task might work. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-06-17 10:50 Message: 7VXS4d <a href="http://ommtatikjvfx.com/">ommtatikjvfx</a>, [url=http://jjlxbwvcruom.com/]jjlxbwvcruom[/url], [link=http://slnnlmzmyrop.com/]slnnlmzmyrop[/link], http://bxmcsumpzhfm.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: songjie dong (dongsj) Date: 2010-11-15 18:34 Message: maybe we could have another mode for instrument because tree pattern would be better for complex ignore rule, what about you guys？ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3098010&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2013-02-06 02:37:11
|
Feature Requests item #3562387, was opened at 2012-08-28 00:26 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3562387&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Roberto Lo Giacco (rlogiacco) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Add maven artifact for coberturaFlush.war Initial Comment: Currently there's no Maven artifact that can be used to retrieve the Cobertura WAR used to flush the code coverage statistics for web applications. I suggest you make this artifact available so that a completely automated build lifecycle can be achieved with Maven. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2013-02-05 18:37 Message: Glc4Kf <a href="http://czliiemorgrm.com/">czliiemorgrm</a>, [url=http://bjwjszhqqhff.com/]bjwjszhqqhff[/url], [link=http://ubowrdglucpu.com/]ubowrdglucpu[/link], http://dsevfzgdudon.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2012-12-02 10:24 Message: This has to be one of the best articles Ive read on this subject so far. You are obviously intelligent, but you really know how to speak to readers. Overall, I agree with your information. [url=http://www.lagbook.com/blogs/item/adorn-your-current-iphone-4-inside-a-fashionable-method]Means[/url] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2012-11-24 23:14 Message: Some genuinely nice stuff on this website , I love it. <a href="http://en.netlog.com/mainardokold/blog/blogid=14178714" title="Involving">Involving</a> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3562387&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-12-18 10:37:14
|
Feature Requests item #3098010, was opened at 2010-10-29 00:32 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sunguilin You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3098010&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: lindsal (lindsal) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: A way to ignore certain methods/lines in report Initial Comment: I have been using cobertura for around a month, so am a relative newbie. A feature I would find very useful is a way to distinguish between (a) untested code that I know about and have decided not to test and (b) untested code that I plan to write tests for. Is there way to do this other than at the class level? If not, I thought a simple way to implement this might be to have a plain text file listing things to ignore. The syntax could something like the following: package.ClassName //ignore whole class package.ClassName.main //ignore main method **.set* //ignore all setter methods in all classes file:package/ClassName.java:20,50,56 //ignore lines 20, 50, 56 in file file:package/ClassName.java:"a = b || c;" //ignore line(s) matching the expression in quotes in file file:**/*.java:assert** //ignore assertions in all files Then in the coverage report, there could be two extra categories: covered ignored and uncovered ignored (which perhaps could be shaded grey). Best, Luke ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Guile (sunguilin) Date: 2012-12-18 02:37 Message: +1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: John McCabe (john_g_mccabe) Date: 2012-10-12 08:36 Message: I agree with the need; this would be particularly useful for private constructors. There's a workaround described at http://blog.paulhildebrand.nl/java/163/improve-code-coverage-on-private-cronstructors-with-cobertura but it's a little untidy. An extension to the existing ignore tag in the ANT task might work. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-06-17 10:50 Message: 7VXS4d <a href="http://ommtatikjvfx.com/">ommtatikjvfx</a>, [url=http://jjlxbwvcruom.com/]jjlxbwvcruom[/url], [link=http://slnnlmzmyrop.com/]slnnlmzmyrop[/link], http://bxmcsumpzhfm.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: songjie dong (dongsj) Date: 2010-11-15 18:34 Message: maybe we could have another mode for instrument because tree pattern would be better for complex ignore rule, what about you guys？ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3098010&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-12-02 18:24:02
|
Feature Requests item #3562387, was opened at 2012-08-28 00:26 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3562387&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Roberto Lo Giacco (rlogiacco) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Add maven artifact for coberturaFlush.war Initial Comment: Currently there's no Maven artifact that can be used to retrieve the Cobertura WAR used to flush the code coverage statistics for web applications. I suggest you make this artifact available so that a completely automated build lifecycle can be achieved with Maven. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2012-12-02 10:24 Message: This has to be one of the best articles Ive read on this subject so far. You are obviously intelligent, but you really know how to speak to readers. Overall, I agree with your information. [url=http://www.lagbook.com/blogs/item/adorn-your-current-iphone-4-inside-a-fashionable-method]Means[/url] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2012-11-24 23:14 Message: Some genuinely nice stuff on this website , I love it. <a href="http://en.netlog.com/mainardokold/blog/blogid=14178714" title="Involving">Involving</a> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3562387&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-11-25 07:14:33
|
Feature Requests item #3562387, was opened at 2012-08-28 00:26 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3562387&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Roberto Lo Giacco (rlogiacco) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Add maven artifact for coberturaFlush.war Initial Comment: Currently there's no Maven artifact that can be used to retrieve the Cobertura WAR used to flush the code coverage statistics for web applications. I suggest you make this artifact available so that a completely automated build lifecycle can be achieved with Maven. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2012-11-24 23:14 Message: Some genuinely nice stuff on this website , I love it. <a href="http://en.netlog.com/mainardokold/blog/blogid=14178714" title="Involving">Involving</a> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3562387&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-11-08 09:26:36
|
Feature Requests item #2694565, was opened at 2009-03-19 07:27 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=2694565&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Trung (trungdinhtrong) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Adding incremental instrumentation Initial Comment: We are developing a prototype Eclipse plugin for Cobertura (it is under testing now and may be open sourced soon). For such a plug-in to be useful, Cobertura needs the ability to instrument only classes that has been changed since the last instrumentation. We noted that Emma has this feature. Here is the detail of the issue: Every time I launch a test, I would instrument the classes and generate a coverage report after the execution. The problem is that every time I instrument, Cobertura would re-instrument the whole classpath, even though only a few classes changed since the previous instrumentation - this is a big performance drawback when Cobertura is used in an interactive mode. There are many projects that takes about 1 minute to be fully instrumented. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2012-11-08 01:26 Message: I like what you guys are up too. This sort of clever work and reporting! Keep up the terrific works guys I've you guys to my personal blogroll. cheap north face jackets http://uabvqpce7844.webgarden.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Joachim Hofer (jmhofer) Date: 2010-03-10 04:37 Message: Cobertura doesn't really have an API, but still, you could just hook into the Main class of cobertura-instrument directly and call the respective single-class instrumentation method... - like I do in my own prototype eclipse plugin over at github. ;) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Piotr Tabor (ptab) Date: 2010-03-07 14:17 Message: Have you tried just exclude from instrumentation all other files then that one 'incremental'. It should work. What's the status of the plugin prototype ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=2694565&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-10-12 15:36:04
|
Feature Requests item #3098010, was opened at 2010-10-29 00:32 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by john_g_mccabe You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3098010&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: lindsal (lindsal) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: A way to ignore certain methods/lines in report Initial Comment: I have been using cobertura for around a month, so am a relative newbie. A feature I would find very useful is a way to distinguish between (a) untested code that I know about and have decided not to test and (b) untested code that I plan to write tests for. Is there way to do this other than at the class level? If not, I thought a simple way to implement this might be to have a plain text file listing things to ignore. The syntax could something like the following: package.ClassName //ignore whole class package.ClassName.main //ignore main method **.set* //ignore all setter methods in all classes file:package/ClassName.java:20,50,56 //ignore lines 20, 50, 56 in file file:package/ClassName.java:"a = b || c;" //ignore line(s) matching the expression in quotes in file file:**/*.java:assert** //ignore assertions in all files Then in the coverage report, there could be two extra categories: covered ignored and uncovered ignored (which perhaps could be shaded grey). Best, Luke ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: John McCabe (john_g_mccabe) Date: 2012-10-12 08:36 Message: I agree with the need; this would be particularly useful for private constructors. There's a workaround described at http://blog.paulhildebrand.nl/java/163/improve-code-coverage-on-private-cronstructors-with-cobertura but it's a little untidy. An extension to the existing ignore tag in the ANT task might work. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-06-17 10:50 Message: 7VXS4d <a href="http://ommtatikjvfx.com/">ommtatikjvfx</a>, [url=http://jjlxbwvcruom.com/]jjlxbwvcruom[/url], [link=http://slnnlmzmyrop.com/]slnnlmzmyrop[/link], http://bxmcsumpzhfm.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: songjie dong (dongsj) Date: 2010-11-15 18:34 Message: maybe we could have another mode for instrument because tree pattern would be better for complex ignore rule, what about you guys？ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3098010&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-08-28 07:26:09
|
Feature Requests item #3562387, was opened at 2012-08-28 00:26 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by rlogiacco You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3562387&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Roberto Lo Giacco (rlogiacco) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Add maven artifact for coberturaFlush.war Initial Comment: Currently there's no Maven artifact that can be used to retrieve the Cobertura WAR used to flush the code coverage statistics for web applications. I suggest you make this artifact available so that a completely automated build lifecycle can be achieved with Maven. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3562387&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-08-24 05:51:43
|
Feature Requests item #3561207, was opened at 2012-08-23 22:51 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3561207&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Support for Android Initial Comment: Is it currently possible to use Cobertura to generate a coverage report for Android applications? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3561207&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-08-21 20:27:58
|
Feature Requests item #3295711, was opened at 2011-05-01 04:18 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by eantonini You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3295711&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: add support for jdk7 Initial Comment: Cobertura gets parse exception if the source files contains jdk7 features. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Endrigo Antonini (eantonini) Date: 2012-08-21 13:27 Message: Any update? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: matthias () Date: 2012-08-16 01:33 Message: Hello, this is a serious problem for us. Could anyone please fix this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Resnick (dresnick) Date: 2012-04-09 23:36 Message: Note that you can work around this limitation by running the instrumented classes with the JVM arg -XX:-UseSplitVerifier. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: https://www.google.com/accounts () Date: 2011-12-12 19:19 Message: hi, any update on this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3295711&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-08-16 08:33:26
|
Feature Requests item #3295711, was opened at 2011-05-01 04:18 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3295711&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: add support for jdk7 Initial Comment: Cobertura gets parse exception if the source files contains jdk7 features. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: matthias () Date: 2012-08-16 01:33 Message: Hello, this is a serious problem for us. Could anyone please fix this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Resnick (dresnick) Date: 2012-04-09 23:36 Message: Note that you can work around this limitation by running the instrumented classes with the JVM arg -XX:-UseSplitVerifier. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: https://www.google.com/accounts () Date: 2011-12-12 19:19 Message: hi, any update on this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3295711&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-05-10 19:38:55
|
Feature Requests item #1959691, was opened at 2008-05-07 11:18 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dma_k You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=1959691&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 6 Private: No Submitted By: John Lewis (lewijw) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Better Handling of Asserts Initial Comment: Ian Dickinson wrote: Sorry if this has been asked before; I did look in the archives but couldn't find anything. I'm getting low branch coverage on code that includes java asserts to encode invariants. For example: public void setFoo( String foo ) { assert foo != null; this.foo = foo; } @Test public void testSetFoo() { new MockFoo.setFoo( "bar" ); } @Test (expected=java.lang.AssertionError.class) public void testSetFoo() { new MockFoo().setFoo( null ); } I can execute both tests successfully, but cobertura will tell me that line with the assert was executed twice but did not traverse all branches. I'm passing -ea to the JVM to enable the assertions, which I can see is working since the tests themselves all pass. I'm using the cobertura 1.9 plugin for Maven2 on Java6 (I've tried both 6u6 and 6u4). Any suggestions? Thanks, Ian Jeffrey Bennett replied: To get full coverage, you'd need to run 3 tests: 1.) Asserts off 2.) Asserts on, conditional true 3.) Asserts on, conditional false You've done #2 and #3 To my knowledge, there's no good way of doing all 3 tests leading to a source of friction between Cobertura and asserts. Ian replied: OK, I understand. Would it be possible to have the branch coverage algorithm take this into account? I don't know if the VM args are captured in the .ser file, but if so it might be possible (I'm guessing here, I admit) for the branch coverage calculator to note that there are two possible worlds (your #1 vs #2 + #3), and depending which one is the "real" world adjust the statistics so that the code either tests one of the one possible branches, or two of the possible two. And if that isn't impossible, can I make it a feature request please? :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Dmitry Katsubo (dma_k) Date: 2012-05-10 12:38 Message: +1 Sometimes assertions are impossible to cover, as they are too deep in the code. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Alex Anderson (alexandergeorge) Date: 2011-08-29 00:24 Message: +1 also keen to see this feature ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Ben Spiller (benspiller) Date: 2011-08-26 04:42 Message: +1 very keen on this feature - I want to encourage more of our developers to add "assert" statements to code to check locking and conditional invariants, but I don't want our code coverage to be reduced as a result! Simply adding an option to ignore assertion lines (so they're always 100% green) would solve the problem and be greatly appreciated. Looks like this would be a popular feature: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4995471/cobertura-coverage-and-the-assert-keyword/ http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5111910/why-does-cobertura-fail-to-report-assert-branch-path-was-covered ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Benjamin Croizet (graffity2199) Date: 2010-04-16 07:48 Message: +1 I also have low branch coverage because of asserts This feature would be very interesting ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-03-03 03:03 Message: Hi, Ditto - I'm using the Maven 2 plugin and would like to be able to disable assertions for the surefire run that cobertura uses. I checked the source and haven't found any obvious way... is there a known workaround (other than doing it manually) for this? Thanks! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2008-12-02 14:44 Message: +1. At least provide an option to just automatically set assertion lines to green or exclude/ignore them. It's simply not practical to do 1+2+3 as described above. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Alan Gutierrez (alangutierrez) Date: 2008-06-03 06:19 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2089590 Originator: NO Please implement this feature. Ideally, Cobertura would not expect to see #3 even when asserts were on. An assert is a condition that should never be true. A very fruitless execerise to test the Java assert mechanism. Certainly, running Cobertura with asserts off should only test #1 and not expect #2 or #3. I would be so happy to see this implemented. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=1959691&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-04-10 06:36:29
|
Feature Requests item #3295711, was opened at 2011-05-01 04:18 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dresnick You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3295711&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: add support for jdk7 Initial Comment: Cobertura gets parse exception if the source files contains jdk7 features. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Resnick (dresnick) Date: 2012-04-09 23:36 Message: Note that you can work around this limitation by running the instrumented classes with the JVM arg -XX:-UseSplitVerifier. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: https://www.google.com/accounts () Date: 2011-12-12 19:19 Message: hi, any update on this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3295711&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-02-23 18:19:25
|
Feature Requests item #3492262, was opened at 2012-02-23 10:19 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by ashishsoni4u You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3492262&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: Next Release (example) Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Ashsh Soni (ashishsoni4u) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Report in CSV format Initial Comment: Is it possible to generate coverage report for cobertura in CSV format. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3492262&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-12-13 03:19:49
|
Feature Requests item #3295711, was opened at 2011-05-01 04:18 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3295711&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: add support for jdk7 Initial Comment: Cobertura gets parse exception if the source files contains jdk7 features. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: https://www.google.com/accounts () Date: 2011-12-12 19:19 Message: hi, any update on this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3295711&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-08-29 07:24:21
|
Feature Requests item #1959691, was opened at 2008-05-07 19:18 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by alexandergeorge You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=1959691&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 6 Private: No Submitted By: John Lewis (lewijw) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Better Handling of Asserts Initial Comment: Ian Dickinson wrote: Sorry if this has been asked before; I did look in the archives but couldn't find anything. I'm getting low branch coverage on code that includes java asserts to encode invariants. For example: public void setFoo( String foo ) { assert foo != null; this.foo = foo; } @Test public void testSetFoo() { new MockFoo.setFoo( "bar" ); } @Test (expected=java.lang.AssertionError.class) public void testSetFoo() { new MockFoo().setFoo( null ); } I can execute both tests successfully, but cobertura will tell me that line with the assert was executed twice but did not traverse all branches. I'm passing -ea to the JVM to enable the assertions, which I can see is working since the tests themselves all pass. I'm using the cobertura 1.9 plugin for Maven2 on Java6 (I've tried both 6u6 and 6u4). Any suggestions? Thanks, Ian Jeffrey Bennett replied: To get full coverage, you'd need to run 3 tests: 1.) Asserts off 2.) Asserts on, conditional true 3.) Asserts on, conditional false You've done #2 and #3 To my knowledge, there's no good way of doing all 3 tests leading to a source of friction between Cobertura and asserts. Ian replied: OK, I understand. Would it be possible to have the branch coverage algorithm take this into account? I don't know if the VM args are captured in the .ser file, but if so it might be possible (I'm guessing here, I admit) for the branch coverage calculator to note that there are two possible worlds (your #1 vs #2 + #3), and depending which one is the "real" world adjust the statistics so that the code either tests one of the one possible branches, or two of the possible two. And if that isn't impossible, can I make it a feature request please? :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Alex Anderson (alexandergeorge) Date: 2011-08-29 08:24 Message: +1 also keen to see this feature ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Ben Spiller (benspiller) Date: 2011-08-26 12:42 Message: +1 very keen on this feature - I want to encourage more of our developers to add "assert" statements to code to check locking and conditional invariants, but I don't want our code coverage to be reduced as a result! Simply adding an option to ignore assertion lines (so they're always 100% green) would solve the problem and be greatly appreciated. Looks like this would be a popular feature: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4995471/cobertura-coverage-and-the-assert-keyword/ http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5111910/why-does-cobertura-fail-to-report-assert-branch-path-was-covered ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Benjamin Croizet (graffity2199) Date: 2010-04-16 15:48 Message: +1 I also have low branch coverage because of asserts This feature would be very interesting ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-03-03 11:03 Message: Hi, Ditto - I'm using the Maven 2 plugin and would like to be able to disable assertions for the surefire run that cobertura uses. I checked the source and haven't found any obvious way... is there a known workaround (other than doing it manually) for this? Thanks! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2008-12-02 22:44 Message: +1. At least provide an option to just automatically set assertion lines to green or exclude/ignore them. It's simply not practical to do 1+2+3 as described above. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Alan Gutierrez (alangutierrez) Date: 2008-06-03 14:19 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2089590 Originator: NO Please implement this feature. Ideally, Cobertura would not expect to see #3 even when asserts were on. An assert is a condition that should never be true. A very fruitless execerise to test the Java assert mechanism. Certainly, running Cobertura with asserts off should only test #1 and not expect #2 or #3. I would be so happy to see this implemented. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=1959691&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-08-26 11:42:48
|
Feature Requests item #1959691, was opened at 2008-05-07 19:18 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by benspiller You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=1959691&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 6 Private: No Submitted By: John Lewis (lewijw) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Better Handling of Asserts Initial Comment: Ian Dickinson wrote: Sorry if this has been asked before; I did look in the archives but couldn't find anything. I'm getting low branch coverage on code that includes java asserts to encode invariants. For example: public void setFoo( String foo ) { assert foo != null; this.foo = foo; } @Test public void testSetFoo() { new MockFoo.setFoo( "bar" ); } @Test (expected=java.lang.AssertionError.class) public void testSetFoo() { new MockFoo().setFoo( null ); } I can execute both tests successfully, but cobertura will tell me that line with the assert was executed twice but did not traverse all branches. I'm passing -ea to the JVM to enable the assertions, which I can see is working since the tests themselves all pass. I'm using the cobertura 1.9 plugin for Maven2 on Java6 (I've tried both 6u6 and 6u4). Any suggestions? Thanks, Ian Jeffrey Bennett replied: To get full coverage, you'd need to run 3 tests: 1.) Asserts off 2.) Asserts on, conditional true 3.) Asserts on, conditional false You've done #2 and #3 To my knowledge, there's no good way of doing all 3 tests leading to a source of friction between Cobertura and asserts. Ian replied: OK, I understand. Would it be possible to have the branch coverage algorithm take this into account? I don't know if the VM args are captured in the .ser file, but if so it might be possible (I'm guessing here, I admit) for the branch coverage calculator to note that there are two possible worlds (your #1 vs #2 + #3), and depending which one is the "real" world adjust the statistics so that the code either tests one of the one possible branches, or two of the possible two. And if that isn't impossible, can I make it a feature request please? :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Ben Spiller (benspiller) Date: 2011-08-26 12:42 Message: +1 very keen on this feature - I want to encourage more of our developers to add "assert" statements to code to check locking and conditional invariants, but I don't want our code coverage to be reduced as a result! Simply adding an option to ignore assertion lines (so they're always 100% green) would solve the problem and be greatly appreciated. Looks like this would be a popular feature: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4995471/cobertura-coverage-and-the-assert-keyword/ http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5111910/why-does-cobertura-fail-to-report-assert-branch-path-was-covered ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Benjamin Croizet (graffity2199) Date: 2010-04-16 15:48 Message: +1 I also have low branch coverage because of asserts This feature would be very interesting ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-03-03 11:03 Message: Hi, Ditto - I'm using the Maven 2 plugin and would like to be able to disable assertions for the surefire run that cobertura uses. I checked the source and haven't found any obvious way... is there a known workaround (other than doing it manually) for this? Thanks! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2008-12-02 22:44 Message: +1. At least provide an option to just automatically set assertion lines to green or exclude/ignore them. It's simply not practical to do 1+2+3 as described above. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Alan Gutierrez (alangutierrez) Date: 2008-06-03 14:19 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2089590 Originator: NO Please implement this feature. Ideally, Cobertura would not expect to see #3 even when asserts were on. An assert is a condition that should never be true. A very fruitless execerise to test the Java assert mechanism. Certainly, running Cobertura with asserts off should only test #1 and not expect #2 or #3. I would be so happy to see this implemented. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=1959691&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-06-20 12:18:03
|
Feature Requests item #3323057, was opened at 2011-06-20 12:18 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3323057&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: https://me.yahoo.com/a/Nf5CbfoP () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Add support for @Generated Initial Comment: It would be nice to be able to configure to ignore code coverage for generated code. Using the Java @Generated (http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/javax/annotation/Generated.html) annotation seems to now provide for a standard method for doing so. Since the value attribute of this annotation is designed to allow for specific generator names to be provided, it would be useful for this support to allow for the configuring of code generated from specific generators to be included/excluded via the filtering mechanism. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3323057&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-06-17 17:50:26
|
Feature Requests item #3098010, was opened at 2010-10-29 07:32 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3098010&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: lindsal (lindsal) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: A way to ignore certain methods/lines in report Initial Comment: I have been using cobertura for around a month, so am a relative newbie. A feature I would find very useful is a way to distinguish between (a) untested code that I know about and have decided not to test and (b) untested code that I plan to write tests for. Is there way to do this other than at the class level? If not, I thought a simple way to implement this might be to have a plain text file listing things to ignore. The syntax could something like the following: package.ClassName //ignore whole class package.ClassName.main //ignore main method **.set* //ignore all setter methods in all classes file:package/ClassName.java:20,50,56 //ignore lines 20, 50, 56 in file file:package/ClassName.java:"a = b || c;" //ignore line(s) matching the expression in quotes in file file:**/*.java:assert** //ignore assertions in all files Then in the coverage report, there could be two extra categories: covered ignored and uncovered ignored (which perhaps could be shaded grey). Best, Luke ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-06-17 17:50 Message: 7VXS4d <a href="http://ommtatikjvfx.com/">ommtatikjvfx</a>, [url=http://jjlxbwvcruom.com/]jjlxbwvcruom[/url], [link=http://slnnlmzmyrop.com/]slnnlmzmyrop[/link], http://bxmcsumpzhfm.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: songjie dong (dongsj) Date: 2010-11-16 02:34 Message: maybe we could have another mode for instrument because tree pattern would be better for complex ignore rule, what about you guys ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3098010&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-05-01 11:18:21
|
Feature Requests item #3295711, was opened at 2011-05-01 11:18 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3295711&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: add support for jdk7 Initial Comment: Cobertura gets parse exception if the source files contains jdk7 features. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=3295711&group_id=130558 |