Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Investigate coverage regression because of not setting static fields #716

Open
sergeypospelov opened this issue Aug 12, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

Investigate coverage regression because of not setting static fields #716

sergeypospelov opened this issue Aug 12, 2022 · 0 comments
Assignees
@sergeypospelov @CaelmBleidd @Damtev

Comments

@sergeypospelov
Copy link
Member

Description

Investigate coverage regression because of #699.

We won't branch on static field from trusted libraries and won't add them to staticsBefore. For now, it saves us from setting [SecurityManager] and other suspicious stuff, but it can lead to coverage regression and thus it requires thorough investigation.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@sergeypospelov sergeypospelov

@CaelmBleidd CaelmBleidd

@Damtev Damtev

Labels
None yet
Projects
UTBot Java
Status: Todo
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@dtim @sergeypospelov @CaelmBleidd @Damtev