Alexander Ilin
Alexander Ilin
Can you please add a test similar to one added by https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/CODETOOLS-7903867?
Please note that the regular report is also showing negative coverage, not only the javap report. Does this fix addresses both reports? Is the root cause the same for the...
FYI: I have created a test for this problem (only javap report, for now): https://github.com/openjdk/jcov/pull/52
I think it would be better to rename "line coverage" to "instruction coverage" in this report. Some other word can be used, but "instruction" is the best I can come...
The test added by https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/CODETOOLS-7903867 is only checking that there is no negative coverage. An update to it is needed to check that the right coverage is reported.
> I think it would be better to rename "line coverage" to "instruction coverage" in this report. Some other word can be used, but "instruction" is the best I can...
> While not being deep in the context it seems that the report body was not reworked to show something else than code lines @dbessono , the report is reworked...
Also created https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/CODETOOLS-7903939 so it is not forgotten. @lkuskov
Can you please add a test similar to one added by https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/CODETOOLS-7903867?