Let us remove BinaryResponseWriter from the list.
The reason why it is has very-low coverage is because
# There are two methods implemented by the class which are there in
the interface but not used and the total lines itself is too small
# One instanceof added for completeness
88 0 if (o instanceof Document) {
89 0 return getDoc((Document) o);
90 }
91
92 0 return o;
# The only lines which I am not sure are the following. I think the
check may be redundant
131 3320 FieldType ft = schema.getFieldTypeNoEx(fieldName);
132 3320 Object val;
133 3320 if (ft==null) { // handle fields not in the schema
134 0 if (f.isBinary()) val = f.binaryValue();
135 0 else val = f.stringValue();
136 } else {
137 3320 val = useFieldObjects ? ft.toObject(f) : ft.toExternal(f);
138 }
everything else is fine
--Noble
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Apache Wiki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Wiki user,
>
> You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Solr Wiki" for change
> notification.
>
> The following page has been changed by HossMan:
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solr1%2e3
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> == TODO: Misc ==
>
> * resolve multicore logging prefix. I think otis suggested moving to the
> end for consistent log file parsers {{{ core.log.info(core.getLogId()+ ... }}}
> - * code coverage reports are generally low, but some of the new classes in
> 1.3 that have frighteningly low coverage -- in many cases these seem like
> pretty important classes and/or high profile plugins. numbers below as of
> May 26...
> + * [http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Solr-trunk/clover/ code
> coverage reports] are generally low, but some of the new classes in 1.3 that
> have frighteningly low coverage -- in many cases these seem like pretty
> important classes and/or high profile plugins. numbers below as of May 26...
> * BinaryResponseWriter (66.7%)
> * BoostedQuery (53.8%)
> * BoostedQuery.CustomScorer (50%)
>
--
--Noble Paul
