Each of these is a site where JaCoCo reported mi > 0 -- a concrete instruction no test
runs -- rather than a partial branch on a compound condition, which is how the group was
filtered in the first place. Six closed, one moved to the exclusions.
AndroidDeviceCodecs:35 the UNPARSEABLE sentinel, refused where an unknown name is not
ContainerCapabilities:94 accepts(container, VideoCodec.NONE, mode) -- the audio twin has
had a test since #136; the asymmetry is the argument
ContainerCapabilities:323 repairVideo's keep-the-requested-codec arm
ContainerCapabilities:348 firstContainerHolding's fallback container
OutputPublisher:230 the resolver call that throws -- the third case the KDoc names
and the one the shape list was missing
JobSnapshots:31 a job that recorded no output path at all
Every one was mutated and confirmed red, then restored. Two are worth stating because
they did not go red first time or would not have:
**The firstContainerHolding test was vacuous on its first draft.** It asserted the
refusal still offered *something*, and deleting the fallback left it green: the source
container is a candidate in its own right, so the list stays non-empty and only its
contents change. Rewritten around AVI, which has no mapping for H.265, and asserting the
codec survives -- without the fallback the app silently offers H.264 instead, which is
the actual loss. This is the failure mode CLAUDE.md records from the mutation review, met
head on rather than in the abstract.
**OutputPublisher:230 needed one line.** `a destination whose size cannot be determined is
never deleted` already walked three RowShapes; QUERY_THROWS was the fourth case its own
KDoc names -- "a resolver call that throws" -- and the only one that reaches `?: false`
through runCatching rather than through a cursor answer.
ContainerCapabilities:282's `.filter { it != exclude }` is **not** closed here and is not
a gap: nothing can make it drop anything. On the shared container `repair` always changes
at least one codec, because a codec it left alone is one validate would not have refused;
every other candidate differs by container; and the single call site passing a non-default
exclude (validateVideo:186) excludes a spec carrying VideoCodec.COPY while every repaired
candidate carries NONE. F4-shaped -- recorded rather than covered, and 550 tests agree.
550 -> 555 JVM tests, 0 failures. Five new tests rather than six: OutputPublisher:230
is one line inside a test that already existed. No production code changed.
Line 2087/2348 -> 2090/2348; branch 1011/1340 -> 1022/1340.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
JMR-devandClaude Opus 5
c2c0bfa848