On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 16:28:09 GMT, Pavel Rappo <pra...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This change is mostly about tests. I say "mostly" because while increasing
>> code coverage, which was the primary goal of this exercise, I uncovered a
>> few non-critical bugs and fixed them in-place. The net effect of the change
>> boils down to these code coverage statistics.
>>
>> before
>> ------
>>
>> %method %block %branch %line
>> jdk.javadoc.internal.doclets.toolkit.taglets.SnippetTaglet
>> 75%(12/16)
>> 87%(109/124)
>> 88%(99/112)
>> 85%(140/164)
>>
>> #classes %method %block %branch %line
>> jdk.javadoc.internal.doclets.toolkit.taglets.snippet
>> 70%(80/114)
>> 76%(310/407)
>> 65%(178/273)
>> 81%(413/508)
>>
>> after
>> -----
>>
>> %method %block %branch %line
>> jdk.javadoc.internal.doclets.toolkit.taglets.SnippetTaglet
>> 100%(17/17)
>> 95%(120/126)
>> 93%(103/110)
>> 97%(163/168)
>>
>> %method %block %branch %line
>> jdk.javadoc.internal.doclets.toolkit.taglets.snippet
>> 83%(94/112)
>> 85%(348/405)
>> 73%(202/273)
>> 91%(463/505)
>
> Pavel Rappo has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Test one more corner case example
test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testSnippetTag/TestSnippetTag.java line 71:
> 69: * 3. ("Inline", "External", "Hybrid")
> 70: * 4. ("Tag", "Markup")
> 71: * 5. <custom string>
I assume the purpose of this naming scheme is to make visible what combinations
of features are covered by each test. I'm not sure I would consider this enough
benefit to justify method names which are very verbose and hard to read
(especially when you don't have fresh memory of the scheme above).
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6359
