-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove powermock #6439
Comments
I am not sure it is possible as powermock was used mock static methods that are out of our code . But I am agree to separate them in special Test classes or ..... To avoid conflicts between powermock and pitest. |
Like I stated above, I am thinking we need to forgo the 100% code coverage and just remove them completely.
I looked at some for another issue, and the ones I was seeing was to clear hard to hit catch exceptions, code in the middle of a method, and tests that would require us to have classes in weird packages. You can still call static/private methods with reflection.
Two of my examples was conflict between normal tests and powermock too. So it is not just pitest. No one wants to work with powermock. |
|
Fix was merged. I will continue to change powermock tests to normal tests. |
Drop powermock completely and use a suppression list similar to pitest to manage uncovered code coverage or rewrite production code so just reflection can be used without mocking.
If that isn't acceptable, the next best thing is to completely isolate powermock tests to their own class(es) but this probably won't solve the main problem.
Reasons supporting removal of powermock:
#6438 (comment)
#6435 (comment)
#6424 (comment)
hcoles/pitest#230 (comment)
#5678 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: