Re-measure the coverage entry against the tree this branch creates

84.9% line / 63.8% branch, 454 tests -> 87.1% line (2025/2324), 69.1% branch (974/1410), 502 tests in 71 classes, as #132 and #133's ten children land. The entry already instructs re-measuring before quoting, and that is why this is here rather than in the batch: quoting these numbers before the work merged would have described a tree that did not exist. It nearly went wrong the other way too -- the first measurement for this commit was taken against a main that was three merges stale and read 85.1%. Also says something the bare numbers do not. Branch moved 5.3 points against line's 2.2, and that asymmetry is the expected shape of this kind of work rather than a curiosity: those children targeted decision code -- enum fallbacks, refusal arms, cursor shapes, a `when` over container rules -- where one test chooses a branch the suite had never taken. Line coverage barely notices that. Branch coverage is the whole point. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Merge commit '79cca0e' into fix/restore-stack-merges
2026-08-27 09:01:40 -05:00 · 2026-08-27 08:59:45 -05:00 · 2026-08-27 08:54:30 -05:00 · 2026-08-27 07:22:38 -05:00 · 2026-08-27 07:22:35 -05:00
1 changed files with 15 additions and 7 deletions
@@ -130,8 +130,9 @@ install for code that can never run — and on API 37 the full APK does not fit
 - The `model` package is excluded from `ReturnCount` and `CyclomaticComplexMethod` only. It is the
  decision layer, where one branch is one documented user-visible outcome and the metric counts
  answers rather than complexity. Every other rule still applies there.
- **Coverage is reported, not gated** — **84.9% of lines (1971/2321), 63.8% of branches**,
-  measured 2026-08-26 with `./gradlew :app:jacocoTestReport`, against 454 JVM tests in 67 classes.
+- **Coverage is reported, not gated** — **87.1% of lines (2025/2324), 69.1% of branches
+  (974/1410)**, measured 2026-08-27 with `./gradlew :app:jacocoTestReport`, against 502 JVM tests
+  in 71 classes.

  **Every figure this file carried before 2026-08-24 was an artifact, roughly half the real one.**
  Robolectric loads classes through its own sandbox classloader with no source location, JaCoCo
@@ -147,12 +148,19 @@ install for code that can never run — and on API 37 the full APK does not fit
  disproportionately Robolectric, so each one added denominator and no numerator — the measurement
  was punishing exactly the tests that were hardest to write.

-  Two things still hold. A floor needs a baseline that has settled, and this one has not: it moved
-  39 points in a single build change on 2026-08-24, then another 16 as the #52 test push and the
+  Two things still hold. A floor needs a baseline that has settled, and this one has not. It moved
+  39 points in a single build change on 2026-08-24; then another 16 as the #52 test push and the
  fixes it turned up landed — 69.2% -> 84.9% line, 53.2% -> 63.8% branch — while the denominator
-  grew 2194 -> 2321, because that work added production code of its own. And **re-measure before
-  quoting**: this entry was written quoting 81.4%, measured four hours earlier, and was already
-  three points stale by the time it was ready to merge.
+  grew 2194 -> 2321, because that work added production code of its own; then again on 2026-08-27
+  as #132 and #133's ten children landed — 84.9% -> 87.1% line, 63.8% -> **69.1%** branch, 454 ->
+  502 tests. **Branch moved four times as far as line that last time**, and that is the shape to
+  expect from this kind of work rather than a surprise: those children targeted decision code —
+  enum fallbacks, refusal arms, cursor shapes, a `when` over container rules — where one test
+  chooses a branch the suite had never taken. Line coverage barely notices; branch coverage is the
+  whole point.
+
+  And **re-measure before quoting**: this entry was once written quoting 81.4%, measured four hours
+  earlier, and was already three points stale by the time it was ready to merge.
 - **Testable code is not done until it is tested.** If a piece is unit testable, it gets unit
  tests before it counts as done. If it is e2e testable, it gets e2e tests. Both clauses apply —
  a change that is both needs both.
Author	SHA1	Message	Date
JMR-devandClaude Opus 5	2d4898ad44	Re-measure the coverage entry against the tree this branch creates 84.9% line / 63.8% branch, 454 tests -> 87.1% line (2025/2324), 69.1% branch (974/1410), 502 tests in 71 classes, as #132 and #133's ten children land. The entry already instructs re-measuring before quoting, and that is why this is here rather than in the batch: quoting these numbers before the work merged would have described a tree that did not exist. It nearly went wrong the other way too -- the first measurement for this commit was taken against a main that was three merges stale and read 85.1%. Also says something the bare numbers do not. Branch moved 5.3 points against line's 2.2, and that asymmetry is the expected shape of this kind of work rather than a curiosity: those children targeted decision code -- enum fallbacks, refusal arms, cursor shapes, a `when` over container rules -- where one test chooses a branch the suite had never taken. Line coverage barely notices that. Branch coverage is the whole point. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-27 09:01:40 -05:00
JMR-dev	83ac7eff2c	Merge commit '79cca0e' into fix/restore-stack-merges	2026-08-27 08:59:45 -05:00
Jason Ross	b2c11bbfe0	Merge pull request #151 from JMR-dev/test/outputpublisher-seams S2 + S3: the two OutputPublisher seams, and where the second one actually goes	2026-08-27 08:54:30 -05:00
JMR-devandClaude Opus 5	3a5210ec5d	S2 + S3 (#142 , #143 ): the two OutputPublisher seams, and where the second one goes #142 -- openOutputStream refuses two ways and only one was reachable. A provider that has gone away throws from inside the call, which `a destination the provider will not open...` already drives. A provider that is present and declines returns null, and nothing could produce that on demand. openDestination is the seam; the test asserts the failure names the destination, which is what separates the `?: error(...)` from an NPE inside `use`. #143 -- the sweep's re-read. The seam the ticket proposed does not reach it. Overriding the listing fires before the entries are snapshotted, so StagingSweep.collectable is handed the new timestamp, the file is never proposed for deletion, and the guard is never exercised. Measured: with an entriesIn seam, deleting the guard outright left the test green. The race is a file that was collectable when the snapshot was taken and is not by the time the delete comes round, so the seam has to sit at the snapshot. `snapshot(listing)` does, and deleting the guard now reddens the test. Three mutations after the move, three red: null stream returns silently null-return test null stream via !! instead null-return test sweep deletes unconditionally race test OutputPublisher.kt now has no never-executed lines at all. Two partial branches are left and both are named exemptions rather than gaps: L216's `getOrNull() ?: false` and L304's `getOrDefault(absoluteFile)` are the failure arms of a runCatching whose body cannot be made to throw through any public entry point -- the same shape as the `size >= 0` exemption recorded in the previous commit. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-27 07:22:38 -05:00
Jason Ross	5f3eda9c40	Merge pull request #149 from JMR-dev/test/outputpublisher-partial-branches C6: OutputPublisher's guarded branches, three of them guarding a delete	2026-08-27 07:22:35 -05:00