-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 39
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
Introduce RefasterMethodParameterOrder
check
#775
Introduce RefasterMethodParameterOrder
check
#775
Conversation
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
1 similar comment
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
d3a7620
to
fdd5e38
Compare
RefasterParameterOrder
checkRefasterMethodParameterOrder
check
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
1 similar comment
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
fdd5e38
to
ce4405d
Compare
Rebased and added a commit to resolve a new violation. |
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
ce4405d
to
2d7224b
Compare
Rebased and resolved conflict. |
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Clean 🧹
2d7224b
to
eb51b24
Compare
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Took some time to wrap my head around the algorithm, but it looks really nice 🚀 !
One question 👀.
" }", | ||
" }", | ||
"}") | ||
.doTest(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It feels a bit odd to have an identification test with only things that should not be matched. I get that the replacement check is way more interesting here but I'd suggest we still add at least one 🤔?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Part of the reason that I put this comment here is that we could also choose to use expectNoDiagnostics
here instead (?) of doTest
to make the intention of the test clearer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair point. We should add a positive case, as that verifies on which tree node the violation is reported.
eb51b24
to
ea6cc7e
Compare
Hmm, interesting (currently in a different issue):
|
I can reproduce that locally, also when upgrading to the currently-latest Also, when I run the tests in IDEA (in an attempt to debug the problem 🙃), I get the same issue as mentioned in #925 (comment); it seems that issue breaks ~all tests in IDEA, not just This'll require a closer look (can't promise when; busy agenda). CC @timtebeek as an FYI. |
I traced the IDEA issue to IDEA-342187, for which I filed #958. This should unblock debugging the other issue. |
ea6cc7e
to
64148fe
Compare
W.r.t. the other issue: I suspect it's due to this code, which doesn't properly handle the unnamed package. I rebased and pushed a commit to fix the build, but would like to reference an issue or PR before merging. I may have time for a PR later today/this week; need to leave the train first ;) |
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
Alright, I filed openrewrite/rewrite-templating#64 and referenced it in the code. |
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added one more commit.
" }", | ||
" }", | ||
"}") | ||
.doTest(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair point. We should add a positive case, as that verifies on which tree node the violation is reported.
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
d3f896b
to
515a502
Compare
I rebased the PR on top of #962 and reverted the package workaround. (So we should merge the upgrade PR first.) |
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
8502934
to
8140f66
Compare
8140f66
to
1096749
Compare
515a502
to
4984efa
Compare
Rebased; the PR now targets |
Quality Gate passedKudos, no new issues were introduced! 0 New issues |
Mutation testing report by Pitest. Review any surviving mutants by inspecting the line comments under Files changed. |
❗ This PR is on top of #962 ❗
Another step towards canonical Refaster rule definitions.
Suggested commit message: