Skip to content

1.x: increase coverage of internal utils, remove unused/unnecessary items #4119

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 25, 2016

Conversation

akarnokd
Copy link
Member

Increase coverage of internal utils, remove unused and unnecessary items.

@codecov-io
Copy link

Current coverage is 81.17%

Merging #4119 into 1.x will increase coverage by 0.57%

@@                1.x      #4119   diff @@
==========================================
  Files           258        257     -1   
  Lines         16835      16811    -24   
  Methods           0          0          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches       2549       2547     -2   
==========================================
+ Hits          13569      13647    +78   
+ Misses         2350       2266    -84   
+ Partials        916        898    -18   

Powered by Codecov. Last updated by 1d75f4a...2bc0d21

@akarnokd akarnokd merged commit ed92ba8 into ReactiveX:1.x Jun 25, 2016
@akarnokd akarnokd deleted the UtilCoveragePlusPlus branch June 25, 2016 13:55
@Test
public void testNotInstantiable() {
try {
Constructor<?> c = UtilityFunctions.class.getDeclaredConstructor();
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There was a discussion about @artem-zinnatullin 's tool in #3130. The verdict was to not include that depencency. If you want, you can implement a minimalistic method that takes a class, but we don't need the full flexibility.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Personally I don't see the benefit of recreating that mechanism / check instead of just adding a testCompile dependency. Also Guava was recently added as a test dependency.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

PR is welcome.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see the benefit of testing this at all. This isn't even a public class! We're testing that an internal type is uninstantiable which has no bearing on the usage of the library and is already enforced by PMD.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants