Closed pettermahlen closed 6 years ago
I think it'd be good to include a note in the readme about this feature and its default configuration. And on a separate not It would be nice if we could set up an integration test to check for synthetic methods, eg using https://github.com/JakeWharton/dex-method-list
Merging #14 into master will decrease coverage by
1.23%
. The diff coverage is81.81%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #14 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 94.78% 93.55% -1.24%
- Complexity 179 192 +13
============================================
Files 21 23 +2
Lines 556 605 +49
Branches 80 83 +3
============================================
+ Hits 527 566 +39
- Misses 22 30 +8
- Partials 7 9 +2
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | Complexity Δ | |
---|---|---|---|
...num/src/main/java/com/spotify/dataenum/Access.java | 0% <0%> (ø) |
0 <0> (?) |
|
...potify/dataenum/processor/parser/ValuesParser.java | 94.11% <100%> (ø) |
5 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
...com/spotify/dataenum/processor/util/Iterables.java | 94.11% <100%> (+0.36%) |
10 <1> (+1) |
:arrow_up: |
...um/processor/generator/value/ValueTypeFactory.java | 98.05% <100%> (ø) |
42 <4> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
.../spotify/dataenum/processor/DataEnumProcessor.java | 92.85% <100%> (+0.75%) |
17 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
...enum/processor/generator/spec/SpecTypeFactory.java | 97.22% <100%> (+0.34%) |
3 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
...com/spotify/dataenum/processor/AccessSelector.java | 85.71% <85.71%> (ø) |
12 <12> (?) |
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 ff2aafa...08f8ab8. Read the comment docs.
README docs added - about an integration test, I think it would be better to use something that looks at the actual modifiers, looking for SYNTHETIC (see for instance http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/jdk/openjdk/6-b14/java/lang/reflect/Modifier.java#Modifier.0SYNTHETIC) - it's 'secret', but that should anyway be safer than checking for a particular kind of method names to identify synthetic methods (cf the synthetic constructor names listed in #13). But that's for some other PR, I'd say. :)
This PR does two things: