Details
-
Suggestion
-
Resolution: Won't Fix
-
None
Description
Problem:
If you declare custom test detector, for instance:
<clover-setup> <testsources dir="src/test/java"> <testclass name=".*"> <testmethod name=".*"/> </testclass> </testsources> </clover-setup>
Then the test detector does not match constructors. As a consequence, a class like this:
public class SomeException extends Exception { public SomeException(String s) { super(s); } }
will be treated as APPLICATION not as TEST code.
Background reason:
public boolean isMethodMatch(SourceContext sourceContext, MethodContext methodContext) { final MethodSignature signature = methodContext.getSignature(); return methodMatches(signature.getName()) && methodAnnotationMatches(signature.getModifiers()) && methodReturnPatternMatches(signature.getReturnType()) && methodTagMatches(signature.getTags()); } public boolean methodReturnPatternMatches(String methodReturnType) { return methodReturnType != null && (methodReturnTypePattern == null || methodReturnTypePattern.matcher(methodReturnType).matches()); }
The methodReturnType==null for constructors, thus constructor do not match the pattern.
Solution:
We could rewrite check like this:
return methodReturnTypePattern == null || (methodReturnType != null && methodReturnTypePattern.matcher(methodReturnType).matches());
However, this would require entirely new handling of code instrumentation for constructors. The reason is that code would be currently rewritten like:
public SomeException(String s) { __CLR3_1_12_100hjv4vvu6.R.globalSliceStart(getClass().getName(), 0); int $CLV_p$ = 0; java.lang.Throwable $CLV_t$ = null; try { __CLR3_1_12_162c4pt0(s); // <<< ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTOR $CLV_p$ = 1; } catch (java.lang.Throwable $CLV_t2$) { if ($CLV_p$ == 0 && $CLV_t$ == null) { $CLV_t$ = $CLV_t2$; } __CLR3_1_12_100hjv4vvu6.R.rethrow($CLV_t2$); } finally { __CLR3_1_12_100hjv4vvu6.R.globalSliceEnd(getClass().getName(), "SomeException.SomeException", 0, $CLV_p$, $CLV_t$); } } private __CLR3_1_12_162c4pt0(String s) { // << COMPILATION FAILURE, MISSING RETURN TYPE super(s); __CLR3_1_12_100hjv4vvu6.R.inc(1); __CLR3_1_12_100hjv4vvu6.R.inc(0); }
Problems:
- call to super() must be first
- we should not move constructor body into another method