| Code Coverage within a method [message #52385] |
Wed, 01 February 2006 10:01  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
I have seen code coverage down to a method level, hit or missed. Is it
possible to get coverage info for each line of code? So far, I have not
seen an option for this, but being new to the TPTP, I could easily have
overlooked an option.
Thanks
Michael Giroux
|
|
|
|
| Re: Code Coverage within a method [message #53008 is a reply to message #52509] |
Mon, 06 February 2006 15:16  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: jkp1974a.cox.net
Paul Slauenwhite wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> Currently, TPTP's code coverage is at the method level. However, we do
> have a feature open for more granular code coverage:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=122315
> Please feel free to comment on requirements/contribute design/code with
> regards to this feature.
> Paul
> "Michael Giroux" <michael.giroux@bull.com> wrote in message
> news:drqigr$677$2@utils.eclipse.org...
>> I have seen code coverage down to a method level, hit or missed. Is it
>> possible to get coverage info for each line of code? So far, I have not
>> seen an option for this, but being new to the TPTP, I could easily have
>> overlooked an option.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Michael Giroux
Hello.
I'm confused by this comment. (Note that I'm a newbie as well). I was
looking to use TPTP to look at code coverage within a method as well.
I was looking at the event specification for the java profiler and I see
that line elements are produced.
http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/platform/documents/resources/pro filingspec/XML4Profiling.htm
Is this the wrong thing? If this doesn't work, are there any
recommendations for code coverage within a method? (I was hoping eclipse
tptp would have this feature...but, it looks like I'm going to have change
gears (this and with the "unknown" status of 1.5/5.0)....
Thanks in advance.
Ken
|
|
|
| Re: Code Coverage within a method [message #53291 is a reply to message #53008] |
Wed, 08 February 2006 13:12 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Ken et al.,
I can see how this may be a little confusing. The Event Specification
for the Java Profiler
( http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/platform/documents/resources/pro filingspec/XML4
Profiling.htm) is for the events that our Java Profiler emits. That said,
our Java Profiler is built on the JVMPI specification that does not support
line level events as opposed to the line number attribute per event that it
does support. The line element can be used by agents that emit Java
Profiler events if they have access to this type of granular information.
Paul
"Ken Po" <jkp1974a@cox.net> wrote in message
news:b43dda9e3e9cbe3883fc4316e869ab7a$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Paul Slauenwhite wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael,
> > Currently, TPTP's code coverage is at the method level. However, we
do
> > have a feature open for more granular code coverage:
>
> > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=122315
>
> > Please feel free to comment on requirements/contribute design/code
with
> > regards to this feature.
>
> > Paul
> > "Michael Giroux" <michael.giroux@bull.com> wrote in message
> > news:drqigr$677$2@utils.eclipse.org...
> >> I have seen code coverage down to a method level, hit or missed. Is it
> >> possible to get coverage info for each line of code? So far, I have
not
> >> seen an option for this, but being new to the TPTP, I could easily have
> >> overlooked an option.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Michael Giroux
>
> Hello.
> I'm confused by this comment. (Note that I'm a newbie as well). I was
> looking to use TPTP to look at code coverage within a method as well.
>
> I was looking at the event specification for the java profiler and I see
> that line elements are produced.
>
http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/platform/documents/resources/pro filingspec/XML4Profiling.htm
>
> Is this the wrong thing? If this doesn't work, are there any
> recommendations for code coverage within a method? (I was hoping eclipse
> tptp would have this feature...but, it looks like I'm going to have change
> gears (this and with the "unknown" status of 1.5/5.0)....
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Ken
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03412 seconds
Home