Menu
▾
▴
cobertura-bugs — Automated emails from our bug tracking system
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2007 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(3) |
Jun
(4) |
Jul
(12) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(16) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(8) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
(7) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
(3) |
May
(5) |
Jun
(10) |
Jul
(3) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(6) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(3) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(4) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(4) |
Apr
(3) |
May
(16) |
Jun
(15) |
Jul
(15) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
(6) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(4) |
Feb
(10) |
Mar
(4) |
Apr
(3) |
May
(5) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
|
Aug
(2) |
Sep
|
Oct
(8) |
Nov
(7) |
Dec
(11) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(9) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(2) |
May
(7) |
Jun
(5) |
Jul
(7) |
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(2) |
Nov
(12) |
Dec
(5) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
(5) |
Mar
(29) |
Apr
(1) |
May
(4) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
| 2013 |
Jan
(4) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2014 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-02-17 11:40:19
|
Bugs item #3049863, was opened at 2010-08-20 17:56 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by kutterma You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3049863&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: Huisheng Xu (xyz20003) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: pass encoding to javancss Initial Comment: Dear cobertura team, Thank you for your great work on cobertura. I met a problem on specifying the javancss encoding in cobertura. The cobertura didn't pass encoding param to javancss, so javancss always used platform default encoding to parse source files. It caused some TokenMgrError in my projects. I want to attach a patch for that issue, but svn told me the javancss had been marked as binary type, so I can't create a patch for it. So I want to ask for your help. it will be very apprieciated for me, if you could resolve this problem. Thanks again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Martin Kutter (kutterma) Date: 2012-02-17 03:40 Message: This is a duplicate of 3020621 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3049863&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-02-14 03:15:51
|
Bugs item #3043364, was opened at 2010-08-11 15:46 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3043364&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: Warning during instrument and no coverage for inner class Initial Comment: Use Cobertura 1.9.4.1 to instrument the following class: class Outer { private static final Inner inner = new Inner(); private static final class Inner { void foo() { System.out.println("foo()"); } } void bar() { inner.foo(); } } You will see the following warning: WARN visitEnd, No line number information found for class Outer$1. Perhaps you need to compile with debug=true? Running the following test class with coverage enabled reports Outer as having zero line coverage: import junit.framework.TestCase; public class OuterTest extends TestCase { public void testOuter() { new Outer().bar(); } } The bug seems to have something to do with the visibility of the members. If you change Inner to public, the warning goes away, but the coverage is still zero. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: https://www.google.com/accounts () Date: 2012-02-13 19:15 Message: I had similar issue here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3043364&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-01-27 18:07:46
|
Bugs item #3480614, was opened at 2012-01-27 10:07 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3480614&group_id=130558 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: https://www.google.com/accounts () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Deadlock Initial Comment: Version 1.9.2. Dealock when Thread overrides interrupt method - see belo Full stack dump is attached "ecp-1-6": waiting for ownable synchronizer 0x00000000c7c2ba50, (a java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock$NonfairSync), which is held by "ecp-1-5" "ecp-1-5": waiting for ownable synchronizer 0x00000000c7c2d390, (a java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock$NonfairSync), which is held by "ecp-1-6" Java stack information for the threads listed above: =================================================== "ecp-1-6": at sun.misc.Unsafe.park(Native Method) - parking to wait for <0x00000000c7c2ba50> (a java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock$NonfairSync) at java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.park(LockSupport.java:156) at java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.parkAndCheckInterrupt(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:811) at java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.acquireQueued(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:842) at java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.acquire(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:1178) at java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock$NonfairSync.lock(ReentrantLock.java:186) at java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock.lock(ReentrantLock.java:262) at net.sourceforge.cobertura.coveragedata.ProjectData.getGlobalProjectData(ProjectData.java:241) at com.genesyslab.gim.etl.util.ECPThread.interrupt(ECPThread.java:68) at java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.selfInterrupt(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:802) at java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.acquire(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:1180) at java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock$NonfairSync.lock(ReentrantLock.java:186) at java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock.lock(ReentrantLock.java:262) at net.sourceforge.cobertura.coveragedata.ProjectData.getOrCreateClassData(ProjectData.java:96) at com.genesyslab.gim.etl.jobs.extract.util.ColumnMapping.add(ColumnMapping.java:47) ... "ecp-1-5": at sun.misc.Unsafe.park(Native Method) - parking to wait for <0x00000000c7c2d390> (a java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock$NonfairSync) at java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.park(LockSupport.java:156) at java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.parkAndCheckInterrupt(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:811) at java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.acquireQueued(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:842) at java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.acquire(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:1178) at java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock$NonfairSync.lock(ReentrantLock.java:186) at java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock.lock(ReentrantLock.java:262) at net.sourceforge.cobertura.coveragedata.ProjectData.getOrCreateClassData(ProjectData.java:96) at com.genesyslab.gim.etl.util.ECPThread.interrupt(ECPThread.java:83) - locked <0x00000000d63eb630> (a java.lang.Object) at java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.selfInterrupt(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:802) at java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.acquire(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:1180) at java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock$NonfairSync.lock(ReentrantLock.java:186) at java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock.lock(ReentrantLock.java:262) at net.sourceforge.cobertura.coveragedata.ProjectData.getGlobalProjectData(ProjectData.java:241) at com.genesyslab.gim.etl.util.Checks.checkNotNull(Checks.java:42) ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3480614&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-01-03 07:12:07
|
Bugs item #3468851, was opened at 2012-01-02 23:12 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3468851&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: Always spews text to stdout Initial Comment: You get messages like "Flushing results..." sent to stdout. My program is a command line tool so this interferes really badly. From examining the source there is now way to turn it off,. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3468851&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-12-18 09:35:38
|
Bugs item #2075537, was opened at 2008-08-26 03:13 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=2075537&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: Accepted Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Branch coverage for switch statement fall-through cases Initial Comment: I'm currently using Cobertura 1.9, and I think it may be miscalculating branch coverage for a switch statement; cases which fall-through to the following case do not seem to be recognised as covered. I've got the following code: public enum AnEnumeration { FOO, BAR, GONK }; public boolean someMethod(AnEnumeration e) { switch (e) { case FOO: case BAR: case GONK: return true; default: return false; } } The unit-test is checking all of the values in the enumeration but not the default case, so I'd expect to see branch coverage of 75% (3 out of 4 branches covered). However, the HTML coverage report seems to indicate that the branches aren't covered at all -- the calculated branch coverage is 25% (1/4). Interestingly, I've tried changing the switch statement to remove the fall-through behaviour: public boolean someMethod(AnEnumeration e) { switch (e) { case FOO: return true; case BAR: return true; case GONK: return true; default: return false; } } With the above code and the same unit-test, Cobertura indicates that the branches are covered and gives the expected coverage figure of 75% (3/4). So, to my uneducated eye, this looks like the fall-through behaviour is somehow confusing the branch coverage calculation. In case it matters, I'm using Java 5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-12-18 01:35 Message: Fw9lSf <a href="http://rxlkpmkvtczd.com/">rxlkpmkvtczd</a>, [url=http://nkopbwehahjq.com/]nkopbwehahjq[/url], [link=http://tggkiatvrjbu.com/]tggkiatvrjbu[/link], http://lxsbuahjnagm.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-11-13 10:13 Message: 8zCY3x <a href="http://vnhwwjukjurt.com/">vnhwwjukjurt</a>, [url=http://jyypnkvzyiov.com/]jyypnkvzyiov[/url], [link=http://jnrlpgolchpp.com/]jnrlpgolchpp[/link], http://loqsmdcgixxp.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-11-13 10:13 Message: 8zCY3x <a href="http://vnhwwjukjurt.com/">vnhwwjukjurt</a>, [url=http://jyypnkvzyiov.com/]jyypnkvzyiov[/url], [link=http://jnrlpgolchpp.com/]jnrlpgolchpp[/link], http://loqsmdcgixxp.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-08-19 09:05 Message: Mp5NE1 <a href="http://xahfoplgeggf.com/">xahfoplgeggf</a>, [url=http://odsjnceaqefk.com/]odsjnceaqefk[/url], [link=http://uqohrpgrvboa.com/]uqohrpgrvboa[/link], http://yxfegmkhijom.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-07-30 14:54 Message: PTsAti <a href="http://xdmdgeysfqjw.com/">xdmdgeysfqjw</a>, [url=http://pibenednxjqv.com/]pibenednxjqv[/url], [link=http://tmtspxtbkeaf.com/]tmtspxtbkeaf[/link], http://leidsspxsgxy.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-06-30 21:33 Message: niCiHf <a href="http://lngdwqrbhjmp.com/">lngdwqrbhjmp</a>, [url=http://lyrnxnxovhib.com/]lyrnxnxovhib[/url], [link=http://itgctlaxqxqz.com/]itgctlaxqxqz[/link], http://vmtncyfamimc.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-05-17 16:51 Message: fL3Xod <a href="http://kgoixptxrrrs.com/">kgoixptxrrrs</a>, [url=http://zhdpsftyufbx.com/]zhdpsftyufbx[/url], [link=http://vinsuxyjwkjf.com/]vinsuxyjwkjf[/link], http://gtblfuvruime.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: John Lewis (lewijw) Date: 2011-01-24 15:53 Message: Changes to the way switch statments are reported will probably go in the next release. Please see: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=EC3002866D5A9D4887210D53E3DA563914CB1E64%40MERCMBX03D.na.SAS.com&forum_name=cobertura-devel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=2075537&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-12-18 09:35:28
|
Bugs item #2998305, was opened at 2010-05-07 12:08 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=2998305&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: Accepted Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: https://www.google.com/accounts () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Low coverage reported on switch statement Initial Comment: The attached code gets an abysmal 2/62 conditional coverage reported by Cobertura 1.9.4.1. Rewriting the switch statement as an if statement gives a much better 34/34. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-12-18 01:35 Message: 7x0xmy <a href="http://rwrxmrpxilqv.com/">rwrxmrpxilqv</a>, [url=http://vcunzohlgthm.com/]vcunzohlgthm[/url], [link=http://sdplwbdnknmd.com/]sdplwbdnknmd[/link], http://jzdhdvximgrj.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-11-13 10:14 Message: kfyqHw <a href="http://eghrtmmcjzlw.com/">eghrtmmcjzlw</a>, [url=http://msomuxrmrosi.com/]msomuxrmrosi[/url], [link=http://exfzwmsfdcpy.com/]exfzwmsfdcpy[/link], http://myrxzsfipxoh.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-11-12 12:36 Message: 4M2sCZ <a href="http://orgbihkoegft.com/">orgbihkoegft</a>, [url=http://ciesfhhgluds.com/]ciesfhhgluds[/url], [link=http://ktnbcsreosim.com/]ktnbcsreosim[/link], http://ztfoilgkosue.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-08-19 09:05 Message: wl6N5J <a href="http://zjmsmzvhgefq.com/">zjmsmzvhgefq</a>, [url=http://sphgodnuncwk.com/]sphgodnuncwk[/url], [link=http://jtwwsggbarfs.com/]jtwwsggbarfs[/link], http://guddvrnodrpp.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-07-30 14:51 Message: EtT4kI <a href="http://mcccmjwrbzfv.com/">mcccmjwrbzfv</a>, [url=http://hgcodqniyulh.com/]hgcodqniyulh[/url], [link=http://xvsigcxwhgfl.com/]xvsigcxwhgfl[/link], http://vewqmdlqwfhd.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-06-30 21:33 Message: BeuivM <a href="http://oyltywxasmdm.com/">oyltywxasmdm</a>, [url=http://ppawjitcozvj.com/]ppawjitcozvj[/url], [link=http://oucjpqmszkjj.com/]oucjpqmszkjj[/link], http://ewnhoqcjfqtt.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-05-17 16:50 Message: WXZKK2 <a href="http://bsazlmjkxxkk.com/">bsazlmjkxxkk</a>, [url=http://yppgydlnwyrm.com/]yppgydlnwyrm[/url], [link=http://dudlxmrjspax.com/]dudlxmrjspax[/link], http://mrtwlkorntgw.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: John Lewis (lewijw) Date: 2011-01-24 15:51 Message: This should be fixed in the next release. Please see the email I just sent to the Cobertura users: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=EC3002866D5A9D4887210D53E3DA563914CB1E64%40MERCMBX03D.na.SAS.com&forum_name=cobertura-devel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=2998305&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-12-13 11:37:26
|
Bugs item #3458953, was opened at 2011-12-13 03:34 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3458953&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: jorge hidalgo () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) >Summary: 0% branch coverage due to wrong number of possible branches Initial Comment: When measuring code coverage in the Spring 3 Petclinic sample application I’ve found a totally unexpected 0% branch coverage metric. Reviewing the results in detail, it seems that on some ‘if’ constructs Cobertura has calculated 131072 (a -1 converted to unsigned??) possible branches and this has pulled down the branch metric to the minimum. This is happening when using Cobertura Maven plug-in only, with Maven site and with Sonar 2.12. Attached an excerpt of the generated cobertura.xml file. Complete file is 24 MB but I share it if needed. Petclinic has been downloaded from trunk in SpringSource spring-samples Subversion repo here: https://src.springframework.org/svn/spring-samples/petclinic/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3458953&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-12-13 11:34:29
|
Bugs item #3458953, was opened at 2011-12-13 03:34 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3458953&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: jorge hidalgo () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: 0% branch coverage due to wrong number of possible brances Initial Comment: When measuring code coverage in the Spring 3 Petclinic sample application I’ve found a totally unexpected 0% branch coverage metric. Reviewing the results in detail, it seems that on some ‘if’ constructs Cobertura has calculated 131072 (a -1 converted to unsigned??) possible branches and this has pulled down the branch metric to the minimum. This is happening when using Cobertura Maven plug-in only, with Maven site and with Sonar 2.12. Attached an excerpt of the generated cobertura.xml file. Complete file is 24 MB but I share it if needed. Petclinic has been downloaded from trunk in SpringSource spring-samples Subversion repo here: https://src.springframework.org/svn/spring-samples/petclinic/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3458953&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-12-06 07:02:52
|
Bugs item #3452110, was opened at 2011-12-05 23:02 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by balavinod You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3452110&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: bala vinod (balavinod) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: excluding packages in the cobertura Initial Comment: hii i am working on this tool.. the report that is generated by cobertura is awesome i have small problem how to exclude the packages or some class in the repot i used exclude tag in ant but it is not excluding ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3452110&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-11-16 20:40:27
|
Bugs item #3408140, was opened at 2011-09-12 09:39 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3408140&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://www.google.com/accounts () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Cobertura instrumented files are incompatibles with jdk 7 Initial Comment: When instrumenting java 7 compiled classes, we encounter java.lang.VerifyError as described in this post : http://t.co/5qwXOkB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jagger () Date: 2011-11-16 12:40 Message: I am having exactly the same problem. First I used Emma for my coverage so I switched to Cobertura but it looks it is not compatible with JDK 7 either. Will this problem be covered anytime soon? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-11-13 13:02 Message: I am having exactly the same problem. First I used Emma for my coverage so I switched to Cobertura but it looks it is not compatible with JDK 7 either. Will this problem be covered anytime soon? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3408140&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-11-15 09:10:00
|
Bugs item #3438186, was opened at 2011-11-15 01:09 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by mark_sinke You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3438186&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: Mark Sinke (mark_sinke) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Switch instrumentation broken for duplicate cases (PATCH) Initial Comment: If a lookup switch contains two cases for the same code, as in swtich (key) { case 1: case 2: doSomething(); break; default: doSomethingElse(); } The case 1 and case 2 will generate a lookup switch key/label pair (1, label) and (2, label). The instrumentation will only generate one "branch hit", and hence only one of the branches can ever be covered. The situation is worse for table switches, where the compiler generates labels pointing to the default case for unspecified entries in the switch. I've attached a patch, including a test case, that only generates one branch entry for every unique label (i.e., it makes sure the single "branch hit" instruction will correctly label the case as hit; the other case is no longer considered a potential branch. This patch also contains the fix to FirstPassMethodInstrumenter.visitAnnotation since I found that issue only after fixing this one. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3438186&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-11-15 08:44:49
|
Bugs item #3438183, was opened at 2011-11-15 00:43 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by mark_sinke You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3438183&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: Mark Sinke (mark_sinke) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) >Summary: VisitAnnotation method messes up annotations (with PATCH) Initial Comment: The description of the annotation is mangled to figure out if the method should be ignored, but then passed on the superclass visitAnnotation. The (small) attached patch fixes the issue. These are the commit comments I would attach I would have commit rights Fix issue with annotation instrumentation that created illegal class files * the annotation description was unmangled for the "ignore method with annotation" feature, but then passed unmangled to the super.visitAnnotation method * now passing the original desc to the super class method ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3438183&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-11-15 08:43:55
|
Bugs item #3438183, was opened at 2011-11-15 00:43 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by mark_sinke You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3438183&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: Mark Sinke (mark_sinke) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: VisitAnnotation method messes up annotations Initial Comment: The description of the annotation is mangled to figure out if the method should be ignored, but then passed on the superclass visitAnnotation. The (small) attached patch fixes the issue. These are the commit comments I would attach I would have commit rights Fix issue with annotation instrumentation that created illegal class files * the annotation description was unmangled for the "ignore method with annotation" feature, but then passed unmangled to the super.visitAnnotation method * now passing the original desc to the super class method ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3438183&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-11-14 12:27:38
|
Bugs item #3437766, was opened at 2011-11-14 04:27 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by cibor74 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3437766&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: Konrad Ciborowski (cibor74) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: ParteException while iterating over array collection Initial Comment: I have the following code in my doInHibernate() method. A certain query returns two columns: Query query = sn.createQuery("SELECT rh, max(rae.sendDate) " + "FROM RoomAlertsEmail rae RIGHT JOIN rae.hotel rh GROUP BY rh"); List<Object[]> pairs = query.list(); for (Object pair[] : pairs) { ... } The error is reported in the for line at the colon position: Encountered " ":" ": "" at line 54, column 36. Encountered " ":" ": "" at line 54, column 36. Was expecting one of: Was expecting one of: "[" ... "[" ... ";" ... ";" ... "," ... "," ... "=" ... "=" ... "[" ... "[" ... "=" ... "=" ... "," ... "," ... ";" ... ";" ... ";" ... ";" ... "[" ... "[" ... "=" ... "=" ... "," ... "," ... ";" ... ";" ... ";" ... ";" ... "[" ... "[" ... "=" ... "=" ... "," ... "," ... ";" ... ";" ... Best regards, Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3437766&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-11-13 21:02:33
|
Bugs item #3408140, was opened at 2011-09-12 09:39 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3408140&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://www.google.com/accounts () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Cobertura instrumented files are incompatibles with jdk 7 Initial Comment: When instrumenting java 7 compiled classes, we encounter java.lang.VerifyError as described in this post : http://t.co/5qwXOkB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-11-13 13:02 Message: I am having exactly the same problem. First I used Emma for my coverage so I switched to Cobertura but it looks it is not compatible with JDK 7 either. Will this problem be covered anytime soon? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3408140&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-11-13 18:14:07
|
Bugs item #2998305, was opened at 2010-05-07 12:08 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=2998305&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: Accepted Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: https://www.google.com/accounts () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Low coverage reported on switch statement Initial Comment: The attached code gets an abysmal 2/62 conditional coverage reported by Cobertura 1.9.4.1. Rewriting the switch statement as an if statement gives a much better 34/34. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-11-13 10:14 Message: kfyqHw <a href="http://eghrtmmcjzlw.com/">eghrtmmcjzlw</a>, [url=http://msomuxrmrosi.com/]msomuxrmrosi[/url], [link=http://exfzwmsfdcpy.com/]exfzwmsfdcpy[/link], http://myrxzsfipxoh.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-11-12 12:36 Message: 4M2sCZ <a href="http://orgbihkoegft.com/">orgbihkoegft</a>, [url=http://ciesfhhgluds.com/]ciesfhhgluds[/url], [link=http://ktnbcsreosim.com/]ktnbcsreosim[/link], http://ztfoilgkosue.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-08-19 09:05 Message: wl6N5J <a href="http://zjmsmzvhgefq.com/">zjmsmzvhgefq</a>, [url=http://sphgodnuncwk.com/]sphgodnuncwk[/url], [link=http://jtwwsggbarfs.com/]jtwwsggbarfs[/link], http://guddvrnodrpp.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-07-30 14:51 Message: EtT4kI <a href="http://mcccmjwrbzfv.com/">mcccmjwrbzfv</a>, [url=http://hgcodqniyulh.com/]hgcodqniyulh[/url], [link=http://xvsigcxwhgfl.com/]xvsigcxwhgfl[/link], http://vewqmdlqwfhd.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-06-30 21:33 Message: BeuivM <a href="http://oyltywxasmdm.com/">oyltywxasmdm</a>, [url=http://ppawjitcozvj.com/]ppawjitcozvj[/url], [link=http://oucjpqmszkjj.com/]oucjpqmszkjj[/link], http://ewnhoqcjfqtt.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-05-17 16:50 Message: WXZKK2 <a href="http://bsazlmjkxxkk.com/">bsazlmjkxxkk</a>, [url=http://yppgydlnwyrm.com/]yppgydlnwyrm[/url], [link=http://dudlxmrjspax.com/]dudlxmrjspax[/link], http://mrtwlkorntgw.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: John Lewis (lewijw) Date: 2011-01-24 15:51 Message: This should be fixed in the next release. Please see the email I just sent to the Cobertura users: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=EC3002866D5A9D4887210D53E3DA563914CB1E64%40MERCMBX03D.na.SAS.com&forum_name=cobertura-devel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=2998305&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-11-13 18:13:18
|
Bugs item #2075537, was opened at 2008-08-26 03:13 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=2075537&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: Accepted Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Branch coverage for switch statement fall-through cases Initial Comment: I'm currently using Cobertura 1.9, and I think it may be miscalculating branch coverage for a switch statement; cases which fall-through to the following case do not seem to be recognised as covered. I've got the following code: public enum AnEnumeration { FOO, BAR, GONK }; public boolean someMethod(AnEnumeration e) { switch (e) { case FOO: case BAR: case GONK: return true; default: return false; } } The unit-test is checking all of the values in the enumeration but not the default case, so I'd expect to see branch coverage of 75% (3 out of 4 branches covered). However, the HTML coverage report seems to indicate that the branches aren't covered at all -- the calculated branch coverage is 25% (1/4). Interestingly, I've tried changing the switch statement to remove the fall-through behaviour: public boolean someMethod(AnEnumeration e) { switch (e) { case FOO: return true; case BAR: return true; case GONK: return true; default: return false; } } With the above code and the same unit-test, Cobertura indicates that the branches are covered and gives the expected coverage figure of 75% (3/4). So, to my uneducated eye, this looks like the fall-through behaviour is somehow confusing the branch coverage calculation. In case it matters, I'm using Java 5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-11-13 10:13 Message: 8zCY3x <a href="http://vnhwwjukjurt.com/">vnhwwjukjurt</a>, [url=http://jyypnkvzyiov.com/]jyypnkvzyiov[/url], [link=http://jnrlpgolchpp.com/]jnrlpgolchpp[/link], http://loqsmdcgixxp.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-11-13 10:13 Message: 8zCY3x <a href="http://vnhwwjukjurt.com/">vnhwwjukjurt</a>, [url=http://jyypnkvzyiov.com/]jyypnkvzyiov[/url], [link=http://jnrlpgolchpp.com/]jnrlpgolchpp[/link], http://loqsmdcgixxp.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-08-19 09:05 Message: Mp5NE1 <a href="http://xahfoplgeggf.com/">xahfoplgeggf</a>, [url=http://odsjnceaqefk.com/]odsjnceaqefk[/url], [link=http://uqohrpgrvboa.com/]uqohrpgrvboa[/link], http://yxfegmkhijom.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-07-30 14:54 Message: PTsAti <a href="http://xdmdgeysfqjw.com/">xdmdgeysfqjw</a>, [url=http://pibenednxjqv.com/]pibenednxjqv[/url], [link=http://tmtspxtbkeaf.com/]tmtspxtbkeaf[/link], http://leidsspxsgxy.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-06-30 21:33 Message: niCiHf <a href="http://lngdwqrbhjmp.com/">lngdwqrbhjmp</a>, [url=http://lyrnxnxovhib.com/]lyrnxnxovhib[/url], [link=http://itgctlaxqxqz.com/]itgctlaxqxqz[/link], http://vmtncyfamimc.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-05-17 16:51 Message: fL3Xod <a href="http://kgoixptxrrrs.com/">kgoixptxrrrs</a>, [url=http://zhdpsftyufbx.com/]zhdpsftyufbx[/url], [link=http://vinsuxyjwkjf.com/]vinsuxyjwkjf[/link], http://gtblfuvruime.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: John Lewis (lewijw) Date: 2011-01-24 15:53 Message: Changes to the way switch statments are reported will probably go in the next release. Please see: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=EC3002866D5A9D4887210D53E3DA563914CB1E64%40MERCMBX03D.na.SAS.com&forum_name=cobertura-devel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=2075537&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-11-13 18:13:04
|
Bugs item #2075537, was opened at 2008-08-26 03:13 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=2075537&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: Accepted Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Branch coverage for switch statement fall-through cases Initial Comment: I'm currently using Cobertura 1.9, and I think it may be miscalculating branch coverage for a switch statement; cases which fall-through to the following case do not seem to be recognised as covered. I've got the following code: public enum AnEnumeration { FOO, BAR, GONK }; public boolean someMethod(AnEnumeration e) { switch (e) { case FOO: case BAR: case GONK: return true; default: return false; } } The unit-test is checking all of the values in the enumeration but not the default case, so I'd expect to see branch coverage of 75% (3 out of 4 branches covered). However, the HTML coverage report seems to indicate that the branches aren't covered at all -- the calculated branch coverage is 25% (1/4). Interestingly, I've tried changing the switch statement to remove the fall-through behaviour: public boolean someMethod(AnEnumeration e) { switch (e) { case FOO: return true; case BAR: return true; case GONK: return true; default: return false; } } With the above code and the same unit-test, Cobertura indicates that the branches are covered and gives the expected coverage figure of 75% (3/4). So, to my uneducated eye, this looks like the fall-through behaviour is somehow confusing the branch coverage calculation. In case it matters, I'm using Java 5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-11-13 10:13 Message: 8zCY3x <a href="http://vnhwwjukjurt.com/">vnhwwjukjurt</a>, [url=http://jyypnkvzyiov.com/]jyypnkvzyiov[/url], [link=http://jnrlpgolchpp.com/]jnrlpgolchpp[/link], http://loqsmdcgixxp.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-08-19 09:05 Message: Mp5NE1 <a href="http://xahfoplgeggf.com/">xahfoplgeggf</a>, [url=http://odsjnceaqefk.com/]odsjnceaqefk[/url], [link=http://uqohrpgrvboa.com/]uqohrpgrvboa[/link], http://yxfegmkhijom.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-07-30 14:54 Message: PTsAti <a href="http://xdmdgeysfqjw.com/">xdmdgeysfqjw</a>, [url=http://pibenednxjqv.com/]pibenednxjqv[/url], [link=http://tmtspxtbkeaf.com/]tmtspxtbkeaf[/link], http://leidsspxsgxy.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-06-30 21:33 Message: niCiHf <a href="http://lngdwqrbhjmp.com/">lngdwqrbhjmp</a>, [url=http://lyrnxnxovhib.com/]lyrnxnxovhib[/url], [link=http://itgctlaxqxqz.com/]itgctlaxqxqz[/link], http://vmtncyfamimc.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-05-17 16:51 Message: fL3Xod <a href="http://kgoixptxrrrs.com/">kgoixptxrrrs</a>, [url=http://zhdpsftyufbx.com/]zhdpsftyufbx[/url], [link=http://vinsuxyjwkjf.com/]vinsuxyjwkjf[/link], http://gtblfuvruime.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: John Lewis (lewijw) Date: 2011-01-24 15:53 Message: Changes to the way switch statments are reported will probably go in the next release. Please see: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=EC3002866D5A9D4887210D53E3DA563914CB1E64%40MERCMBX03D.na.SAS.com&forum_name=cobertura-devel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=2075537&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-11-12 20:36:56
|
Bugs item #2998305, was opened at 2010-05-07 12:08 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=2998305&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: Accepted Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: https://www.google.com/accounts () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Low coverage reported on switch statement Initial Comment: The attached code gets an abysmal 2/62 conditional coverage reported by Cobertura 1.9.4.1. Rewriting the switch statement as an if statement gives a much better 34/34. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-11-12 12:36 Message: 4M2sCZ <a href="http://orgbihkoegft.com/">orgbihkoegft</a>, [url=http://ciesfhhgluds.com/]ciesfhhgluds[/url], [link=http://ktnbcsreosim.com/]ktnbcsreosim[/link], http://ztfoilgkosue.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-08-19 09:05 Message: wl6N5J <a href="http://zjmsmzvhgefq.com/">zjmsmzvhgefq</a>, [url=http://sphgodnuncwk.com/]sphgodnuncwk[/url], [link=http://jtwwsggbarfs.com/]jtwwsggbarfs[/link], http://guddvrnodrpp.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-07-30 14:51 Message: EtT4kI <a href="http://mcccmjwrbzfv.com/">mcccmjwrbzfv</a>, [url=http://hgcodqniyulh.com/]hgcodqniyulh[/url], [link=http://xvsigcxwhgfl.com/]xvsigcxwhgfl[/link], http://vewqmdlqwfhd.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-06-30 21:33 Message: BeuivM <a href="http://oyltywxasmdm.com/">oyltywxasmdm</a>, [url=http://ppawjitcozvj.com/]ppawjitcozvj[/url], [link=http://oucjpqmszkjj.com/]oucjpqmszkjj[/link], http://ewnhoqcjfqtt.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-05-17 16:50 Message: WXZKK2 <a href="http://bsazlmjkxxkk.com/">bsazlmjkxxkk</a>, [url=http://yppgydlnwyrm.com/]yppgydlnwyrm[/url], [link=http://dudlxmrjspax.com/]dudlxmrjspax[/link], http://mrtwlkorntgw.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: John Lewis (lewijw) Date: 2011-01-24 15:51 Message: This should be fixed in the next release. Please see the email I just sent to the Cobertura users: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=EC3002866D5A9D4887210D53E3DA563914CB1E64%40MERCMBX03D.na.SAS.com&forum_name=cobertura-devel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=2998305&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-11-01 21:24:39
|
Bugs item #3432050, was opened at 2011-11-01 22:23 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by zbigniew_szmek You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3432050&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: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbigniew_szmek) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) >Summary: javancss error on for(double arg[][]:array_list) Initial Comment: Cobertura gives the following warning: [cobertura] WARN [main] net.sourceforge.cobertura.reporting.ComplexityCalculator - JavaNCSS got an error while parsing the java file /home/z ParseException in STDIN Last useful checkpoint: "org.signalml.plugin.newartifact.logic.mgr.NewArtifactMgrPreprocessStep.NewArtifactAlgorithmBufferSynchronizer.getNex Encountered " ":" ": "" at line 108, column 64. Was expecting one of: "[" ... ";" ... "," ... "=" ... Trivial fix is to change 'double buffer[][]' to 'double[][] buffer', which works fine. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3432050&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-11-01 21:23:38
|
Bugs item #3432050, was opened at 2011-11-01 22:23 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by zbigniew_szmek You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3432050&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: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbigniew_szmek) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: source code parser chokes on for(double arg[][]:array_list) Initial Comment: Cobertura gives the following warning: [cobertura] WARN [main] net.sourceforge.cobertura.reporting.ComplexityCalculator - JavaNCSS got an error while parsing the java file /home/z ParseException in STDIN Last useful checkpoint: "org.signalml.plugin.newartifact.logic.mgr.NewArtifactMgrPreprocessStep.NewArtifactAlgorithmBufferSynchronizer.getNex Encountered " ":" ": "" at line 108, column 64. Was expecting one of: "[" ... ";" ... "," ... "=" ... Trivial fix is to change 'double buffer[][]' to 'double[][] buffer', which works fine. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3432050&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-10-20 14:08:26
|
Bugs item #3426404, was opened at 2011-10-20 14:08 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3426404&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: Javancss error when parsing for statement with annotation Initial Comment: The code looks like this: for (@SuppressWarnings("unchecked") Iterator<String> i = stateModel.getExpandSelection().iterator(); i.hasNext();) { String previousAbsolutePath = i.next(); String currentAbsolutePath = getCurrentAbsolutePath( previousAbsolutePath, orgMap); if (!previousAbsolutePath.equalsIgnoreCase(currentAbsolutePath)) { i.remove(); } } The error message looks like this, where line 506 is the first line in the code above: [cobertura-report] Encountered " "@" "@ "" at line 506, column 14. [cobertura-report] Was expecting one of: [cobertura-report] "assert" ... [cobertura-report] "boolean" ... ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3426404&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-10-12 19:08:27
|
Bugs item #1977586, was opened at 2008-05-29 10:26 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=1977586&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: Vincent (magicninja) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Java 5 enum, branch coverage Initial Comment: Hi, I've a enum with 4 values. In my code i have something like that: switch (this.action) { case ACTION_1: case ACTION_2: break; case ACTION_3: case ACTION_4: break; } And cobertura computes as branch coverage: 4/5. I guess it expects a kind of 'default' branch, but i cover the whole enum. Regards, -- Vincent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-10-12 19:08 Message: K1k21Z <a href="http://cmsznnavrixc.com/">cmsznnavrixc</a>, [url=http://lvizvhbcdszv.com/]lvizvhbcdszv[/url], [link=http://tuwozwerfjns.com/]tuwozwerfjns[/link], http://xltpnqeiejvf.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-07-30 22:20 Message: NNRFpx <a href="http://wwjslhwbdjpw.com/">wwjslhwbdjpw</a>, [url=http://czpwdrbsqprb.com/]czpwdrbsqprb[/url], [link=http://kmnfwbbkxwit.com/]kmnfwbbkxwit[/link], http://ammatsjndxva.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-06-14 14:20 Message: Pct78O <a href="http://lkydjrfatbrd.com/">lkydjrfatbrd</a>, [url=http://msviqzzhfadn.com/]msviqzzhfadn[/url], [link=http://yohrcgjceiih.com/]yohrcgjceiih[/link], http://wejlhosymmgo.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Piotr Tabor (ptab) Date: 2011-01-31 06:37 Message: Just submitted the solution for this issue into my branch (branches/ptab_v2_0/cobertura). There is a special path if the switch uses enum, and we don't allow the switch to have more branches then the original enum. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Michael (michael-o) Date: 2011-01-29 22:31 Message: Is there no action on this issue? I suffer from this one too. I added a default: throw new AssertionError(); because this can never happen. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Vincent (magicninja) Date: 2008-06-19 11:41 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1966132 Originator: YES In my case, this.action is never at this point of my code (i know cobertura can't know that). About the null pointer, i tried that: enum Foo { BAR, BAZ; } public static void main(String[] args) { Foo foo = null; switch (foo) { case BAR: System.out.println(foo); break; case BAZ: System.out.println(foo); break; default: System.out.println("default"); } } ... even with a default label, i get a NPE. So, i think cobertura should not expect the default branch when the enum is totally covered. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Stephen Connolly (stephen_c) Date: 2008-06-18 08:06 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2035266 Originator: NO What about null? There's a NPE that can be thrown in your switch is action==null ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=1977586&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-09-12 16:39:54
|
Bugs item #3408140, was opened at 2011-09-12 16:39 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3408140&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://www.google.com/accounts () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Cobertura instrumented files are incompatibles with jdk 7 Initial Comment: When instrumenting java 7 compiled classes, we encounter java.lang.VerifyError as described in this post : http://t.co/5qwXOkB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=3408140&group_id=130558 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2011-08-19 16:05:32
|
Bugs item #2998305, was opened at 2010-05-07 19:08 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=2998305&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: Accepted Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: https://www.google.com/accounts () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Low coverage reported on switch statement Initial Comment: The attached code gets an abysmal 2/62 conditional coverage reported by Cobertura 1.9.4.1. Rewriting the switch statement as an if statement gives a much better 34/34. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-08-19 16:05 Message: wl6N5J <a href="http://zjmsmzvhgefq.com/">zjmsmzvhgefq</a>, [url=http://sphgodnuncwk.com/]sphgodnuncwk[/url], [link=http://jtwwsggbarfs.com/]jtwwsggbarfs[/link], http://guddvrnodrpp.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-07-30 21:51 Message: EtT4kI <a href="http://mcccmjwrbzfv.com/">mcccmjwrbzfv</a>, [url=http://hgcodqniyulh.com/]hgcodqniyulh[/url], [link=http://xvsigcxwhgfl.com/]xvsigcxwhgfl[/link], http://vewqmdlqwfhd.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-07-01 04:33 Message: BeuivM <a href="http://oyltywxasmdm.com/">oyltywxasmdm</a>, [url=http://ppawjitcozvj.com/]ppawjitcozvj[/url], [link=http://oucjpqmszkjj.com/]oucjpqmszkjj[/link], http://ewnhoqcjfqtt.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2011-05-17 23:50 Message: WXZKK2 <a href="http://bsazlmjkxxkk.com/">bsazlmjkxxkk</a>, [url=http://yppgydlnwyrm.com/]yppgydlnwyrm[/url], [link=http://dudlxmrjspax.com/]dudlxmrjspax[/link], http://mrtwlkorntgw.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: John Lewis (lewijw) Date: 2011-01-24 23:51 Message: This should be fixed in the next release. Please see the email I just sent to the Cobertura users: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=EC3002866D5A9D4887210D53E3DA563914CB1E64%40MERCMBX03D.na.SAS.com&forum_name=cobertura-devel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720015&aid=2998305&group_id=130558 |
10 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
