Closed adityaketkar closed 6 years ago
Merging #156 into dev will decrease coverage by
15%
. The diff coverage is8.96%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #156 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 54.98% 39.97% -15.01%
===========================================
Files 46 57 +11
Lines 1255 1366 +111
Branches 103 102 -1
===========================================
- Hits 690 546 -144
- Misses 542 801 +259
+ Partials 23 19 -4
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
...rotocolanalyzer/analyzer/network/IPv4Analyzer.java | 6.97% <0%> (-87.9%) |
:arrow_down: |
...rotocolanalyzer/analyzer/network/IPv6Analyzer.java | 1.38% <0%> (-0.18%) |
:arrow_down: |
...tocolanalyzer/analyzer/transport/IcmpAnalyzer.java | 2.04% <0%> (-0.29%) |
:arrow_down: |
...zer/persistence/repository/AnalysisRepository.java | 37.5% <0%> (-14.36%) |
:arrow_down: |
...otocolanalyzer/analyzer/transport/TcpAnalyzer.java | 7.79% <0%> (-2.07%) |
:arrow_down: |
...va/in/ac/bits/protocolanalyzer/utils/Beautify.java | 96.29% <100%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
...in/ac/bits/protocolanalyzer/utils/BitOperator.java | 91.42% <80%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
...lyzer/analyzer/event/PacketTypeDetectionEvent.java | 0% <0%> (-100%) |
:arrow_down: |
...otocolanalyzer/analyzer/link/EthernetAnalyzer.java | 13.95% <0%> (-79.07%) |
:arrow_down: |
...analyzer/analyzer/transport/TransportAnalyzer.java | 55.55% <0%> (-44.45%) |
:arrow_down: |
... and 17 more |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 09f88bd...34aca9d. Read the comment docs.
@adityaketkar There was some miscommunication. I wanted to remove code quality issues from existing tests. I also wanted to have Hamcrest assertions there. This PR is doing a wholesale refactoring of modules without tests. Very Dangerous practice.
Please work only improving the existing unit tests - do not write new unit tests or do not refactor the code anywhere.
@prasadtalasila there is a lot of code that needs to be refactored as per codeclimate. Should we have a different PR and issue to address it?