Can fully covered code have an EclEmma coverage rating of less than 100%?

Question

I just wrote some simple sample code to make sure that I had EclEmma installed correctly. I\'m not getting 100% coverage, and I don\'t understand why. The highlighting impli

Answer 1

I think you will either need to test the instantiation of Arithmetic as well, or declare its constructor private to disallow instantiation

Answer 2

Your code implies a default constructor, which can't be properly tagged by Emma, because it doesn't have a block of text.

Since it is not properly tagged within the block of text, Emma can't associate the coverage logging with the text file, and it looks like some code isn't covered; because, you ran some bytecode, but the line logging couldn't be registered. Later when the reporting element reads the line logging, they can't find the line numbers for the default constructor, and it highlights the error in the only place that sort of makes sense, the class declaration line.

The default constructor looks like

public Arithmetic() {
  super();
}

Where the super is the implied first instruction which will construct Object. While you may omit its presence, the compiler will add it in for you. That's where your get "3 lines" instead of one.

Answer 3

IIRC, you need to instantiate an instance of the class to exercise the language provided constructor.