coveralls
commented
2 years ago Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 594
- 29 of 33 (87.88%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
- 4 unchanged lines in 2 files lost coverage.
- Overall coverage increased (+0.1%) to 71.903%
| Changes Missing Coverage | Covered Lines | Changed/Added Lines | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| airline-core/src/main/java/com/github/rvesse/airline/restrictions/common/NoOptionLikeValuesRestriction.java | 22 | 26 | 84.62% | ||
| <!-- | Total: | 29 | 33 | 87.88% | --> |
| Files with Coverage Reduction | New Missed Lines | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| airline-core/src/main/java/com/github/rvesse/airline/annotations/restrictions/PortType.java | 2 | 92.31% | ||
| airline-core/src/main/java/com/github/rvesse/airline/restrictions/common/PortRangeImpl.java | 2 | 65.52% | ||
| <!-- | Total: | 4 | --> |
| Totals | |
|---|---|
| Change from base Build 585: | 0.1% |
| Covered Lines: | 5635 |
| Relevant Lines: | 7837 |
This handles the case where option-like values, whether intentional or typo'd by the user, that are passed to options/arguments should be rejected.
This is a solution to the issue described in #112.
Users can use the new
@NoOptionLikeValuesannotation to indicate that an@Option/@Argumentsannotated field will reject any values that look like they are options BUT did not match a defined option. The set of prefixes used to consider a value being option like is configurable to deal with users who have unusual/non-standard option naming schemes.