Github user coveralls commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
[](https://coveralls.io/builds/11177727)
Coverage increased (+0.09%) to 94.693% when pulling
Github user coveralls commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
[](https://coveralls.io/builds/11177727)
Coverage increased (+0.09%) to 94.693% when pulling
Github user yasserzamani commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
@PascalSchumacher , sorry for my bad decisions. Again I thought I should
keep it public to provide same functionality for someone who needs in future :)
Now, I removed it to
Github user PascalSchumacher commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
If I'm not mistaken the list returned by `getAllSuperclassesAndInterfaces`
can contain the same interface multiple times if it is implemented by more than
one super class. To prevent
Github user PascalSchumacher commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
Created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-1321 for the
`ClassUtils#getAllSuperclassesAndInterfaces` addition.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this
Github user yasserzamani commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
> Sorry for the delay, other open source projects and vacations interfered.
You're welcome, I understand and as an open source fun contributor, I'm
patient enough :)
>
Github user coveralls commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
[](https://coveralls.io/builds/11170248)
Coverage increased (+0.07%) to 94.675% when pulling
Github user PascalSchumacher commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
@yasserzamani Sorry for the delay, other open source projects and vacations
interfered.
I'm not sure if the priority parameter of `getAllSuperclassesAndInterfaces`
is
Github user PascalSchumacher commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
Concerning the coverage: I think it's because the coverage differs between
java versions. The build used to determine coverage depends on the order in
which the travis builds finish.
Github user yasserzamani commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
Thank you @Abrasha ,
I signed up with [coveralls.io](http://coveralls.io) and see that all of
this PR's changes are covered with unit tests:
Github user coveralls commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
[](https://coveralls.io/builds/10822401)
Coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 94.577% when pulling
Github user Abrasha commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
@yasserzamani I thinks because you added more conditional branches in the
latest commit and that is why less LOC are covered
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
Github user yasserzamani commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
@PascalSchumacher , I made it better ð thanks a lot!
Please feel free to make any recommendation if you think I can make it
better.
> Coverage decreased (-0.03%) to
Github user coveralls commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
[](https://coveralls.io/builds/10806431)
Coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 94.571% when pulling
Github user yasserzamani commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
ð I am working on a new commit. thanks!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user PascalSchumacher commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
Well we have to keep `getMethodsWithAnnotation(cls, annotationCls)` for
compatibility reasons. In my opinion it is not problem if is equal to
`getMethodsWithAnnotation(cls,
Github user yasserzamani commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
Another bad thing is that `getMethodsWithAnnotation(cls, annotationCls,
false, false)` will be a duplicate for `getMethodsWithAnnotation(cls,
annotationCls)`.
Another solution is
Github user PascalSchumacher commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
You are right. The method signature I suggested omits the important super
part. I agree it should be something like `getMethodsWithAnnotation(Class cls,
annotationCls, boolean
Github user yasserzamani commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
@PascalSchumacher , thank you! I was overloaded by another job and forgot
that I also can use method overloads. Yes, strongly I agree. Just I have some
doubts about name
Github user PascalSchumacher commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
Thanks for the pull request!
It is really unfortunate that the existing method
`getMethodsWithAnnotation` is not called `getAccessibleMethodsWithAnnotation` :
(, because
Github user coveralls commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/261
[](https://coveralls.io/builds/10775689)
Coverage decreased (-0.002%) to 94.603% when pulling
21 matches
Mail list logo
