Comments on: Clovering Clover http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-9/ Your zero step program Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:40:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Matt Quail http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-9/#comment-170 Matt Quail Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:13:24 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-9#comment-170 <p>Noel, the problem is, that the very class doing the instrumenting is the one we want to instrument... You can get two different classloaders to load the same class twice, but you can't get the same classloader to load the one class two "different" ways...</p> Noel, the problem is, that the very class doing the instrumenting is the one we want to instrument… You can get two different classloaders to load the same class twice, but you can’t get the same classloader to load the one class two "different" ways…

]]> By: Noel Grandin http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-9/#comment-169 Noel Grandin Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:08:30 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-9#comment-169 <p>You don't have to just through all those hoops. Simply create your own classloader class for loading the covered classes that "defines" the classes it loads itself. This works because the VM identifies a class by using the <ClassLoaderObjectId, ClassName> pair. So your coverage analyzer and any classes it analyzes will remain disjoint. (It's a little tricky writing your own classloader to do this - took me about a day.)</p> You don’t have to just through all those hoops.
Simply create your own classloader class for loading the covered classes that "defines" the classes it loads itself.
This works because the VM identifies a class by using the <ClassLoaderObjectId, ClassName> pair.
So your coverage analyzer and any classes it analyzes will remain disjoint.
(It’s a little tricky writing your own classloader to do this - took me about a day.)

]]> By: James http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-9/#comment-168 James Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:09:27 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-9#comment-168 <p>What's the code coverage % of clover's unit tests? :)</p> What’s the code coverage % of clover’s unit tests? :)

]]> By: Matt Quail http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-9/#comment-167 Matt Quail Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:09:44 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-9#comment-167 <p>Oliver, the reason why we have "pretend" unit tests is that it is just simpler.</p> <p>Currently, our unit tests are in the same "package" as the class they test (though they are in different source tree). Therefore, they don't need to import the class being tested. Now, if we re-packaged the code but not the tests, then the tests wouldn't compile (the tests would need to import the "pretend" classes explicitly in this instance)</p> Oliver, the reason why we have "pretend" unit tests is
that it is just simpler.

Currently, our unit tests are in the same "package" as the
class they test (though they are in different source tree).
Therefore, they don’t need to import the class being tested.
Now, if we re-packaged the code but not the tests, then
the tests wouldn’t compile (the tests would need to import
the "pretend" classes explicitly in this instance)

]]> By: Oliver Burn http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-9/#comment-166 Oliver Burn Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:21:22 +0000 http://madbean.com/blog/2003-9#comment-166 <p>Great article - but I do not understand why you need "pretend" unit tests. Is it because your tests require access to package protected types/methods?</p> Great article - but I do not understand why you need "pretend" unit tests. Is it because your tests require access to package protected types/methods?

]]>