Code coverage is not working for certain classes in checkstyle #3843

Closed
rnveach opened this Issue Feb 18, 2017 · 23 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@rnveach
Member

rnveach commented Feb 18, 2017

Identified and confirmed in #3842

Cobertura code coverage it not producing any results for the DesignForExtensionCheck.
coverage1

When having travis print out target/site/cobertura/coverage.xml it confirms no results for that check but results for the other checks.
https://travis-ci.org/rnveach/checkstyle/builds/202961252#L4174-L4192

When testing EclEmma on master's code, I see 2 lines missing branch coverage for this check.

@romani romani added the approved label Feb 18, 2017

@rnveach

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rnveach

rnveach Feb 18, 2017

Member

Backport 7.5.1 doesn't have an issue with this check. It shows up in the report with the missing coverage.
Checkstyle 7.5.1 and 7.2 doesn't show the check.
Checkstyle 7.1 and 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 DOES show the check.

Commit 0671624 broke cobertura somehow for this check.
Debug output didn't give me anything that I could see.

I think the issue is related to Java 8 somehow. Either lambdas or Java 8 related imported class.
We should verify if other Java 8 coded classes are missing in cobertura.

Last commit to cobertura was June 2016. https://github.com/cobertura/cobertura/commits/master
We should probably consider the utility abandoned and look for another coverage utility,

Member

rnveach commented Feb 18, 2017

Backport 7.5.1 doesn't have an issue with this check. It shows up in the report with the missing coverage.
Checkstyle 7.5.1 and 7.2 doesn't show the check.
Checkstyle 7.1 and 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 DOES show the check.

Commit 0671624 broke cobertura somehow for this check.
Debug output didn't give me anything that I could see.

I think the issue is related to Java 8 somehow. Either lambdas or Java 8 related imported class.
We should verify if other Java 8 coded classes are missing in cobertura.

Last commit to cobertura was June 2016. https://github.com/cobertura/cobertura/commits/master
We should probably consider the utility abandoned and look for another coverage utility,

@romani

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@romani

romani Feb 18, 2017

Member

we already considered jacoco, but 2 years ago, cobertura was much better. @MEZk , did investigation of jacoco usage, we even had profile to run validation.
jacoco is just another bag of problems (most problems are the same), even it is not stale.
here is a link to jacoco profile that I removed recently - https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/wiki/How-to-generate-UT-coverage-report

Member

romani commented Feb 18, 2017

we already considered jacoco, but 2 years ago, cobertura was much better. @MEZk , did investigation of jacoco usage, we even had profile to run validation.
jacoco is just another bag of problems (most problems are the same), even it is not stale.
here is a link to jacoco profile that I removed recently - https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/wiki/How-to-generate-UT-coverage-report

@rnveach

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rnveach

rnveach Feb 18, 2017

Member

After reverting the jacoco commit and minor fixing so all classes require 100% coverage, I get the following pertinent results:

[WARNING] Rule violated for bundle checkstyle: lines covered ratio is 0.98, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for bundle checkstyle: branches covered ratio is 0.98, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.checks.coding.RequireThisCheck: branches covered ratio is 0.98, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.filters.SuppressionFilter: branches covered ratio is 0.77, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.checks.design.DesignForExtensionCheck: branches covered ratio is 0.97, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.checks.ClassResolver: lines covered ratio is 0.98, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.utils.JavadocUtils: lines covered ratio is 0.99, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.utils.JavadocUtils: branches covered ratio is 0.98, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.Main: lines covered ratio is 0.99, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.Main: branches covered ratio is 0.89, but expected minimum is 1.00

Command: mvn -Pjacoco-check verify

Cobertura is missing RequireThisCheck, DesignForExtensionCheck.
Cobertura disagrees on coverage on the others.

Member

rnveach commented Feb 18, 2017

After reverting the jacoco commit and minor fixing so all classes require 100% coverage, I get the following pertinent results:

[WARNING] Rule violated for bundle checkstyle: lines covered ratio is 0.98, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for bundle checkstyle: branches covered ratio is 0.98, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.checks.coding.RequireThisCheck: branches covered ratio is 0.98, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.filters.SuppressionFilter: branches covered ratio is 0.77, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.checks.design.DesignForExtensionCheck: branches covered ratio is 0.97, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.checks.ClassResolver: lines covered ratio is 0.98, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.utils.JavadocUtils: lines covered ratio is 0.99, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.utils.JavadocUtils: branches covered ratio is 0.98, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.Main: lines covered ratio is 0.99, but expected minimum is 1.00
[WARNING] Rule violated for class com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.Main: branches covered ratio is 0.89, but expected minimum is 1.00

Command: mvn -Pjacoco-check verify

Cobertura is missing RequireThisCheck, DesignForExtensionCheck.
Cobertura disagrees on coverage on the others.

@MEZk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MEZk

MEZk Feb 18, 2017

Contributor

@rnveach
One of the reasons why we cannot use jacoco
jacoco/jacoco#449

Contributor

MEZk commented Feb 18, 2017

@rnveach
One of the reasons why we cannot use jacoco
jacoco/jacoco#449

@rnveach

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rnveach

rnveach Feb 19, 2017

Member

Problem with cobertura is with java.util.stream.Stream class.
Any class that imports it and uses it, in some way, loses coverage. 10 production classes have it as an import in master right now and are confirmed to be missing from the report.
It could be related to cobertura/cobertura#262

Problem with (real) missing coverage using jacoco is with powermock.
Any powermock coverage is ignored. It is related to jacoco/jacoco#51 and has been a long time issue.

Member

rnveach commented Feb 19, 2017

Problem with cobertura is with java.util.stream.Stream class.
Any class that imports it and uses it, in some way, loses coverage. 10 production classes have it as an import in master right now and are confirmed to be missing from the report.
It could be related to cobertura/cobertura#262

Problem with (real) missing coverage using jacoco is with powermock.
Any powermock coverage is ignored. It is related to jacoco/jacoco#51 and has been a long time issue.

@MEZk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MEZk

MEZk Feb 19, 2017

Contributor

Problem with cobertura is with java.util.stream.Stream class.

Confirm. Removed it from DesignForExtension and cobertura showed 97% branch coverage. Let me fix the problem for DesignForExtension and I will continue working on #3842

Contributor

MEZk commented Feb 19, 2017

Problem with cobertura is with java.util.stream.Stream class.

Confirm. Removed it from DesignForExtension and cobertura showed 97% branch coverage. Let me fix the problem for DesignForExtension and I will continue working on #3842

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 19, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 19, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 19, 2017

@rnveach

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rnveach

rnveach Feb 19, 2017

Member

We should do 2 things for this Issue.

  1. Disallow java.util.stream.Stream in import control with a reason to a new issue where we remove once cobertura get fixed.
  2. Replace all uses of Stream with Arrays.stream or any other means.

It would be great if we could add a CI item that would do a compare from the list of classes/interfaces/enumerations in src\main\java to the list of classes in target\site\cobertura\coverage.xml and would look for any missing files to make sure this is the only problem.

Member

rnveach commented Feb 19, 2017

We should do 2 things for this Issue.

  1. Disallow java.util.stream.Stream in import control with a reason to a new issue where we remove once cobertura get fixed.
  2. Replace all uses of Stream with Arrays.stream or any other means.

It would be great if we could add a CI item that would do a compare from the list of classes/interfaces/enumerations in src\main\java to the list of classes in target\site\cobertura\coverage.xml and would look for any missing files to make sure this is the only problem.

@MEZk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MEZk

MEZk Feb 19, 2017

Contributor

@rnveach
Can you change the title of the issue as it is more general.

Contributor

MEZk commented Feb 19, 2017

@rnveach
Can you change the title of the issue as it is more general.

@rnveach rnveach changed the title from Code coverage is not working for DesignForExtensionCheck to Code coverage is not working for certain classes in checkstyle Feb 19, 2017

romani added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 19, 2017

@romani romani added this to the 7.6 milestone Feb 19, 2017

@romani

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@romani

romani Feb 19, 2017

Member

fix is merged

Member

romani commented Feb 19, 2017

fix is merged

@romani romani closed this Feb 19, 2017

@romani romani reopened this Feb 19, 2017

@romani

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@romani

romani Feb 19, 2017

Member

Disallow java.util.stream.Stream in import control with a reason to a new issue where we remove once cobertura get fixed.

agree.

It would be great if we could add a CI item that would do a compare

it might be better to find all files in target, and just search them in report.

Member

romani commented Feb 19, 2017

Disallow java.util.stream.Stream in import control with a reason to a new issue where we remove once cobertura get fixed.

agree.

It would be great if we could add a CI item that would do a compare

it might be better to find all files in target, and just search them in report.

@romani

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@romani

romani Feb 20, 2017

Member

One more point, some time ago we switched cobertura to quite mode, if we disable it in pom , smth valuable might be printed to output.

Member

romani commented Feb 20, 2017

One more point, some time ago we switched cobertura to quite mode, if we disable it in pom , smth valuable might be printed to output.

@Godin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

Godin commented Feb 20, 2017

@rnveach FWIW - PowerMock works with JaCoCo offline instrumentation - see https://github.com/powermock/powermock/wiki/Code-coverage-with-JaCoCo#offline-instrumentation

@Godin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Godin

Godin Feb 20, 2017

@MEZk

One of the reasons why we cannot use jacoco jacoco/jacoco#449

Could you please elaborate why this is super blocker? Rounding down in reports was implemented in jacoco/jacoco#452 and as was said in jacoco/jacoco#449 (comment) - "You can specify any precision for the check goal".

And also wondering what are the other reasons?

Godin commented Feb 20, 2017

@MEZk

One of the reasons why we cannot use jacoco jacoco/jacoco#449

Could you please elaborate why this is super blocker? Rounding down in reports was implemented in jacoco/jacoco#452 and as was said in jacoco/jacoco#449 (comment) - "You can specify any precision for the check goal".

And also wondering what are the other reasons?

@MEZk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MEZk

MEZk Feb 21, 2017

Contributor

@Godin

  1. Java compiler creates synthetic code. For example for enums. JaCoCo cannot treat such code properly.
  2. try-catch-finally coverage problem is really annoying (jacoco/jacoco#55)
  3. try-with-resources coverage problem (jacoco/jacoco#82)

All the cases mentioned are included in JaCoCo's road map:
https://github.com/jacoco/jacoco/wiki/FilteringOptions
jacoco/jacoco#15

We cannot fully switch to JaCoCo till FilteringOptions are not implemented.

Contributor

MEZk commented Feb 21, 2017

@Godin

  1. Java compiler creates synthetic code. For example for enums. JaCoCo cannot treat such code properly.
  2. try-catch-finally coverage problem is really annoying (jacoco/jacoco#55)
  3. try-with-resources coverage problem (jacoco/jacoco#82)

All the cases mentioned are included in JaCoCo's road map:
https://github.com/jacoco/jacoco/wiki/FilteringOptions
jacoco/jacoco#15

We cannot fully switch to JaCoCo till FilteringOptions are not implemented.

@MEZk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MEZk

MEZk Feb 21, 2017

Contributor

@romani @rnveach
I created an issue in cobertura-maven-plugin GitHub repo:
mojohaus/cobertura-maven-plugin#29

Contributor

MEZk commented Feb 21, 2017

@romani @rnveach
I created an issue in cobertura-maven-plugin GitHub repo:
mojohaus/cobertura-maven-plugin#29

@Godin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Godin

Godin Feb 21, 2017

@MEZk you're right that there are synthetic constructions that JaCoCo does not filter.

However the same way you do workarounds for cobertura, you can do workarounds for synthetic constructions, especially for enums 😈 both look awkward 😉

BTW, without offence, but IMO inability of Cobertura to deal with some Java 8 constructions is of a bigger problem (especially given activity in project) than missing filtering. Also note that this inability goes down to Cobertura itself ( https://github.com/cobertura/cobertura ), not to cobertura-maven-plugin that just a wrapper over coverage tool. And not sure that Cobertura is/will be ready for arrival of Java 9.

Coming back to filtering in JaCoCo: to my taste synthetic code in enums is the easiest one to filter, while synthetic code for try-with-resources is hardest. I might try to do a baby-step in a big story of filtering at least starting from just enums, and trying to push this into next version. But unfortunately can't give you any strong guarantees about filtering in general.

In this context also should be mentioned that possible to create post-processor that will filter JaCoCo output based on comments in code. And this is actually easier than filtering on a bytecode level. Maybe even more usable than usage of coverage check. If this might be helpful for you, then could try to find time to share PoC of this.

And thank you for your honest feedback 👍

Godin commented Feb 21, 2017

@MEZk you're right that there are synthetic constructions that JaCoCo does not filter.

However the same way you do workarounds for cobertura, you can do workarounds for synthetic constructions, especially for enums 😈 both look awkward 😉

BTW, without offence, but IMO inability of Cobertura to deal with some Java 8 constructions is of a bigger problem (especially given activity in project) than missing filtering. Also note that this inability goes down to Cobertura itself ( https://github.com/cobertura/cobertura ), not to cobertura-maven-plugin that just a wrapper over coverage tool. And not sure that Cobertura is/will be ready for arrival of Java 9.

Coming back to filtering in JaCoCo: to my taste synthetic code in enums is the easiest one to filter, while synthetic code for try-with-resources is hardest. I might try to do a baby-step in a big story of filtering at least starting from just enums, and trying to push this into next version. But unfortunately can't give you any strong guarantees about filtering in general.

In this context also should be mentioned that possible to create post-processor that will filter JaCoCo output based on comments in code. And this is actually easier than filtering on a bytecode level. Maybe even more usable than usage of coverage check. If this might be helpful for you, then could try to find time to share PoC of this.

And thank you for your honest feedback 👍

@MEZk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MEZk

MEZk Feb 21, 2017

Contributor

@rnveach @robertpainsi
According to my investigation of Cobertura coverage report generation all interfaces from java.util.stream should be disallowed in our code.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/stream/package-summary.html

[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/FinalParametersCheck.java:25:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/IllegalCatchCheck.java:26:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/IllegalThrowsCheck.java:25:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/ModifiedControlVariableCheck.java:29:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/RequireThisCheck.java:32:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/design/VisibilityModifierCheck.java:30:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/javadoc/JavadocStyleCheck.java:31:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/metrics/AbstractClassCouplingCheck.java:29:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/naming/ParameterNameCheck.java:24:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
Contributor

MEZk commented Feb 21, 2017

@rnveach @robertpainsi
According to my investigation of Cobertura coverage report generation all interfaces from java.util.stream should be disallowed in our code.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/stream/package-summary.html

[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/FinalParametersCheck.java:25:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/IllegalCatchCheck.java:26:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/IllegalThrowsCheck.java:25:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/ModifiedControlVariableCheck.java:29:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/RequireThisCheck.java:32:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/design/VisibilityModifierCheck.java:30:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/javadoc/JavadocStyleCheck.java:31:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/metrics/AbstractClassCouplingCheck.java:29:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
[checkstyle] [ERROR] /checkstyle/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/naming/ParameterNameCheck.java:24:1: Disallowed import - java.util.stream.Stream. [ImportControl]
@romani

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@romani

romani Feb 21, 2017

Member

we lost coverage (base on http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/cobertura/index.html) for:
FinalParametersCheck
IllegalCatchCheck
IllegalThrowsCheck
JavadocStyleCheck
ModifiedControlVariableCheck
ParameterNameCheck
VisibilityModifierCheck

useful commands to get this list:

mvn clean compile cobertura:cobertura
grep "nowrap" target/site/cobertura/frame-sourcefiles.html | sed -E "s/.*\.html\">//" | sed "s/<.*//" | sort | uniq > 1.log
find target/classes -type f -name "*.class" | grep -vE ".*\\$.*" | sed -E "s/.*\///" | sed "s/.class//" | sort | uniq > 2.log
grep -Fxv -f 1.log 2.log
....... after that I did manual removal if excluded files in pom.xml
Member

romani commented Feb 21, 2017

we lost coverage (base on http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/cobertura/index.html) for:
FinalParametersCheck
IllegalCatchCheck
IllegalThrowsCheck
JavadocStyleCheck
ModifiedControlVariableCheck
ParameterNameCheck
VisibilityModifierCheck

useful commands to get this list:

mvn clean compile cobertura:cobertura
grep "nowrap" target/site/cobertura/frame-sourcefiles.html | sed -E "s/.*\.html\">//" | sed "s/<.*//" | sort | uniq > 1.log
find target/classes -type f -name "*.class" | grep -vE ".*\\$.*" | sed -E "s/.*\///" | sed "s/.class//" | sort | uniq > 2.log
grep -Fxv -f 1.log 2.log
....... after that I did manual removal if excluded files in pom.xml
@MEZk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MEZk

MEZk Feb 21, 2017

Contributor

@romani
Coverage report after removing problematic imports
http://mezk.github.io/i3843-coverage/cobertura

As you can see RequireThisCheck is not fully covered.

Contributor

MEZk commented Feb 21, 2017

@romani
Coverage report after removing problematic imports
http://mezk.github.io/i3843-coverage/cobertura

As you can see RequireThisCheck is not fully covered.

@romani

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@romani

romani Feb 21, 2017

Member

@MEZk , please move RequireThisCheck to excludes of cobertura and send PR to disallow usages of streams.

Member

romani commented Feb 21, 2017

@MEZk , please move RequireThisCheck to excludes of cobertura and send PR to disallow usages of streams.

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 21, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 21, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 21, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 23, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 23, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 23, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 23, 2017

@MEZk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MEZk

MEZk Feb 23, 2017

Contributor

Classes which are missed in Cobertura coverage report:
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/IllegalCatchCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/IllegalThrowsCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/ModifiedControlVariableCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/RequireThisCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/design/VisibilityModifierCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/FinalParametersCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/javadoc/JavadocStyleCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/metrics/AbstractClassCouplingCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/naming/ParameterNameCheck

Contributor

MEZk commented Feb 23, 2017

Classes which are missed in Cobertura coverage report:
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/IllegalCatchCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/IllegalThrowsCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/ModifiedControlVariableCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/coding/RequireThisCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/design/VisibilityModifierCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/FinalParametersCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/javadoc/JavadocStyleCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/metrics/AbstractClassCouplingCheck
com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/checks/naming/ParameterNameCheck

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2017

romani added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2017

@romani

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@romani

romani Feb 25, 2017

Member

fix is merged.

Member

romani commented Feb 25, 2017

fix is merged.

@romani romani closed this Feb 25, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2017

MEZk added a commit to MEZk/checkstyle that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2017

romani added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2017

@romani

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@romani

romani Feb 26, 2017

Member

Fix for checking is merged.

Member

romani commented Feb 26, 2017

Fix for checking is merged.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment