Hi st�phane,
> >>The patch submitted works great, and this is exactly what i needed. :)
> >
> > Terrific!
Just looked up the word "terrific" in my dictionary.com. It means
either "very good" or "very bad". Strange English word... Anyways, I
meant the "very good" one. ;-)
cf. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=*&q=terrific
> Humm, yes, it is a bad idea to exclude some files from coverage, because
> it produce a non-realistic report . but in the same time, there is some
> classes you know they will NEVER be called by your tests ( I.E : aspectJ
> classes, constants, main() classes .... ) and to produce a better
> report, it could be a solution to exclude these files.
>
> but, it is my point of view ;)
Actually, I don't use jcoverage for analytic reasons, but just as a
pointer to where I might need more testing. So if there are classes you
don't plan to test, I guess you can exclude them from jcoverage. I
myself don't test autogenerated code. I'm just too lazy to exclude them.
:)
Best regards,
-- Shinobu Kawai
--
Shinobu Kawai <[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
