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.

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

Code Proportions Computer for methods with null / true / false #14

Open
NicoleRauch opened this issue Aug 26, 2013 · 3 comments
Open

Code Proportions Computer for methods with null / true / false #14

NicoleRauch opened this issue Aug 26, 2013 · 3 comments

Comments

@NicoleRauch
Copy link
Member

This Code Proportions Computer should discover methods that are invoked with the constant parameters

  • null
  • true
  • false
@marcphilipp
Copy link
Member

👍

@NicoleRauch
Copy link
Member Author

Wow, this is not trivial at all...

I've implemented a first rough draft. It attaches the hotspots to the methods where the invocations take place. In an improved version, I'd rather attach the hotspots to the invoked methods... (but couldn't yet figure out how to do that)

This statistics additionally raises the following questions:

  • Should we disregard invocations of methods that are not under Usus control (e.g. framework methods)? (I think yes)
  • Should we disregard methods with only one parameter (these may be setters)? (undecided)
  • Should we disregard invocations of methods that happen in tests? (I rather think yes)

@marcphilipp
Copy link
Member

Cool that you've started to work on this! :-)

In an improved version, I'd rather attach the hotspots to the invoked methods...

+1

Should we disregard invocations of methods that are not under Usus control (e.g. framework methods)? (I think yes)

+1

Should we disregard methods with only one parameter (these may be setters)?

Another possibility would be to ignore methods with one parameter if and only if the start with "set".

Should we disregard invocations of methods that happen in tests?

I think that's orthogonal to this feature and better handled in #15. What do you think?

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants