Hello.
Le mer. 3 juil. 2019 à 13:56, Heinrich Bohne a écrit :
>
> It is very strange indeed, because the last time this happened, the
> reported change in coverage percentage was also wrong, so I initially
> assumed that the -0.03% report for this pull request time was false too.
> Actually, I'm
It is very strange indeed, because the last time this happened, the
reported change in coverage percentage was also wrong, so I initially
assumed that the -0.03% report for this pull request time was false too.
Actually, I'm still not entirely convinced that it isn't false, because
in the summary
On 03/07/2019 12:00, Heinrich Bohne wrote:
I think we are talking about two completely different issues here. I am
aware that 2 of my newly introduced lines (the IllegalArgumentException
cases you mentioned) are not covered. These are argument validations
inside private methods, so they should
so my pull request did
uncover these lines in BigFraction.toString(), contrary to what the
Coverall report says.
Excuse me, of course it should be "my pull request did *not*
uncover these lines"
On 7/3/19 1:00 PM, Heinrich Bohne wrote:
I think we are talking about two completely different iss
I think we are talking about two completely different issues here. I am
aware that 2 of my newly introduced lines (the IllegalArgumentException
cases you mentioned) are not covered. These are argument validations
inside private methods, so they should never be reached, as you
correctly assumed.
W
On 03/07/2019 10:35, Heinrich Bohne wrote:
But the detailed report you linked to is exactly where I got the
information about what existing lines have (purportedly) been uncovered
from. It's true that the master branch changed in the meantime, but
those commits only concerned formatting and chang
But the detailed report you linked to is exactly where I got the
information about what existing lines have (purportedly) been uncovered
from. It's true that the master branch changed in the meantime, but
those commits only concerned formatting and changing the field
serialVersionUID in BigFractio
> On 3 Jul 2019, at 09:38, Heinrich Bohne wrote:
>
> So this is the second time this happens to me. I've submitted a pull
> request ( https://github.com/apache/commons-numbers/pull/63 ), and the
> Coveralls reports says that several existing lines have been uncovered,
> which is a lie, because
So this is the second time this happens to me. I've submitted a pull
request ( https://github.com/apache/commons-numbers/pull/63 ), and the
Coveralls reports says that several existing lines have been uncovered,
which is a lie, because the lines purportedly "uncovered" were already
not covered in
