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
Pitest: Kill all surviving mutations #11720
Comments
Once we approve this issue, we should close #7797 and any child/ associated issues. |
approved. it would be good to see html report(s) where ALL is activated to see visually scope of work. REpost should be on github.io to let mentors review it and discuss at any time and from phones. we need to have commit that disables all CIs. to make sure we will not eat all credits for CI provided, and we are not banned from CI usage due to misbehavior (overusage).
PR should have no CI jobs started or all of them do nothing (skip all jobs). the only activity happens by comment to trigger Github Action. |
@rnveach @nick-mancuso An example of such lines is present over here (modified a bit for demonstrating). Though uncovered lines will result in low line coverage, it is rounded up in certain cases (example) and the line coverage becomes 100% :( hcoles/pitest#375 The final resort is to create some custom method, we can either check line coverage We can create a new class named |
Missing code coverage would also impact jacoco, which is also checking code coverage. Is Jacoco reporting similar missing code coverage is pitest only alone? |
This seems like an improvement to me, as long as coverage is properly reported by Jacoco. Do we currently have suppressions in pitest.sh like this? |
@nick-mancuso Yes, coverage is supported by jacoco, where pitest rounds off, jacoco doesn't so the result is more accurate. See this report, see
We do but that suppression is a bug, see hcoles/pitest#688 Lines 61 to 67 in e8b63a1
|
@Vyom-Yadav let's do this: since we have separated execution of pitest and generation of pitest report out of your groovy script, let's also remove pitest execution and report generation from pitest.sh, and have both scripts run for duration of GSOC as an ongoing "regression" test for your new script. |
…elated to anonymous inner class
…elated to static blocks
…elated to anonymous inner class
…elated to anonymous inner class
…elated to static blocks
…elated to static blocks
…elated to anonymous inner class
…elated to static blocks
…anceCheck in calculateDistanceInSingleScope
…nUsageDistanceCheck related to usage distance
…anceCheck in isVariableInOperatorExpr
…anceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideForWhileDoWhileBlocks
…nUsageDistanceCheck related to usage distance
…nUsageDistanceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideIfBlock
…nUsageDistanceCheck in searchVariableUsageExpressions
…nUsageDistanceCheck related to usage distance
…anceCheck related to usage distance
…nUsageDistanceCheck in searchVariableUsageExpressions
…nUsageDistanceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideIfBlock
…nUsageDistanceCheck in searchVariableUsageExpressions
…nUsageDistanceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideIfBlock
…nUsageDistanceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideIfBlock
…nUsageDistanceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideIfBlock
…nUsageDistanceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideIfBlock
@nick-mancuso , do we need this mega issue ? |
…anceCheck in searchVariableUsageExpressions
We will allow #11972 to close this issue, and open more granular issues as we need to. |
…nUsageDistanceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideIfBlock
…nUsageDistanceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideIfBlock
…nUsageDistanceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideIfBlock
…nUsageDistanceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideIfBlock
…nUsageDistanceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideIfBlock
…nUsageDistanceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideIfBlock
…nUsageDistanceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideIfBlock
…anceCheck in getFirstNodeInsideIfBlock
This will be main tracker issue for killing surviving mutations before we begin work in #11719
Now that we have diff report generation as github action, let's modify the procedure from #7797 (comment) a bit to speed this up:
HARDCODED MUTATION WILL NOT BE IN FINAL PR.
We will have one of three outcomes for each mutation (in order of preference):
Case (2) and (3) required a detailed analysis and discussion in issue before making any changes.
We will not be pursuing surviving mutations in IndentationCheck or gui package .
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: