you might want to add a ratio attribute but I don't think this is necessary. Also using separate element names for the differnt coverage types is useful - also it is faster and easier to access with xPath this way.
Let me know what you think,
Guido
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I m just trying to use the xml report to work on my coverage data but I find the format quite inconvenient.
I rather suggest a format does not add % and , characters to the coverage attributes. This makes it a lot easier to work with XPath and XSLT
you might consider a format like this for one of the next releases:
<all name="all classes">
<classcoverage count="185" covered="185"/>
<methodcoverage count="2061" covered="1345"/>
<blockcoverage count="74846" covered="44997"/>
<linecoverage count="13135" covered="8346.3"/>
you might want to add a ratio attribute but I don't think this is necessary. Also using separate element names for the differnt coverage types is useful - also it is faster and easier to access with xPath this way.
Let me know what you think,
Guido
This is a reasonable idea. I admit that the original XML format was not very useful and was pending external input like what you've just provided.
RFE: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1075952&group_id=108932&atid=651900