Shinobu Kawai a �crit :
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
Well, i am not an english spoken person too ;) in french, the 'terrific' word could mean something like 'scary' .... I apologize too ;)
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
