Change issue 1945 test to paramaterized #3739
Conversation
| assertEquals(resultsQualifiedName.get(expr.toString()), qName); | ||
| assertEquals(resultsResolvedType.get(expr.toString()), resolvedType); | ||
| } | ||
| private static List<MethodCallExpr> parsedCodeMethodCalls() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are you declaring this method static?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is our understanding that the factory method that provides inputs to a test must be declared static as per the JUnit documentation.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @ParameterizedTest | ||
| @MethodSource("parsedCodeMethodCalls") | ||
| void test(MethodCallExpr expr) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed this test method is a little less complex in this case.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3739 +/- ##
===============================================
- Coverage 57.326% 57.299% -0.028%
- Complexity 2680 5435 +2755
===============================================
Files 635 635
Lines 33576 33557 -19
Branches 5791 5785 -6
===============================================
- Hits 19248 19228 -20
- Misses 12274 12276 +2
+ Partials 2054 2053 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
jlerbsc
added
the
PR - TESTCASE
|
Thank you for this contribution. |
Hello, I have worked with @TheJosephCCox to address the code smell concern raised in #3668. Please let us know what you think of this change. Thank you.