[ cobertura-Feature Requests-1172106 ] Feature to disable coverage on specific methods/classes

[SourceForge.net <no...@so...>]

Feature Requests item #1172106, was opened at 2005-03-29 04:13
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by hotribao
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=1172106&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: Feature to disable coverage on specific methods/classes 

Initial Comment:
I would like to be able to remove methods or whole
classes from coverage consideration. 

This would be quite useful for declerative methods that
are never to be called but present to enforce a
contract. For example a private default constructor for
a utility class (with static methods only) that makes
sure that no objects can be created for the specific
type or a no-op implementation of an illegal method
that throws an UnsupportedOperationException. 

Presently, these declerative methods show up as
untested in the statistics. I would like to be able to
instruct Cobertura that these methods are to be removed
(grayed out) from all reports and statistics. 

One way would be to allow this to be configured in XML
or maybe even better by JDK1.5 tiger annotations (the
specific annotation used would best be configured so
that users can declare an annotation of their own
instead of making their source dependable on Cobertura).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Ho Tri Bao (hotribao)
Date: 2008-12-05 22:25

Message:
I submitted a patch for this here
https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2353196&group_id=130558&atid=720017

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Date: 2008-12-05 22:16

Message:
I submitted a patch for this here:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2353196&group_id=130558&atid=720017

There are other features included in that patch

Bao.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Date: 2006-03-31 16:35

Message:
Logged In: NO 

I'm searching for this feature too. An ant task option will 
be perfect with getter/setter disable and a regexp matcher.

It's not a simple feature but enforce the concept of code 
coverage : simple beans most not be included in reports and 
generates wrong statistics and useless "red spots", 
decreasing usability : you must check class one by one to 
see if statistics are relevant ...


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Stephen Colebourne (scolebourne)
Date: 2005-11-29 02:14

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=408725

I agree with this feature request. Getters and setters
should not be tested. Ideally I would like to see a regex
method matcher, so I can also exclude other methods (eg.
*Property methods in our application)

Thanks for Cobertura

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Date: 2005-09-05 22:15

Message:
Logged In: NO 

Lines that throw exceptions may also be removed from
untested code.I

I also agree that private constructors should not appear in
the report, at least there shoul be a option to do that.

Mickal

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Julien Rentrop (julienrentrop)
Date: 2005-05-11 18:04

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=1276478

Filtering out classes should already be possible by using a
fileset element in the instrument task and exclude the
classes which you don't want to analyze.

An addition to your comment: A lot of Java methods are just
getters and setters. We are not going to write these simple
methods. But int he coverage reports the lines of codes of
the getters and setters are counted which do decrease the
coverage percentage.

It would be nice to have the option to remove getters and
setters from coverage considiration.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=720018&aid=1172106&group_id=130558