Talk:Java code coverage tools - Revision history

Qwerfjkl (bot): Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)

2024-01-28T15:22:50Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:22, 28 January 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
⚫	{{WP Software}}
	{{Old AfD multi\|page=JaCoCo\|date=26 February 2013\|result='''keep'''}}		{{Old AfD multi\|page=JaCoCo\|date=26 February 2013\|result='''keep'''}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=\|
		⚫	{{WikiProject Software}}
			}}

	==notable because:==		==notable because:==

Oleanderyogurt: /* Testwell CTC++ for Java */ new section

2023-04-13T16:40:47Z

Testwell CTC++ for Java: new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 16:40, 13 April 2023
Line 27:		Line 27:

	Just because someone thinks Jacoco is "superior" to Cobertura, the latter should not be "extinct" from Wikipedia completely. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.127.226.200\|195.127.226.200]] ([[User talk:195.127.226.200\|talk]]) 13:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		Just because someone thinks Jacoco is "superior" to Cobertura, the latter should not be "extinct" from Wikipedia completely. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.127.226.200\|195.127.226.200]] ([[User talk:195.127.226.200\|talk]]) 13:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Testwell CTC++ for Java ==

			This is a proprietary software--and is listed as such in the article.

			Shouldn't it have its own page rather than being listed with open-source brands? [[User:Hcsnoke\|Hcsnoke]] ([[User talk:Hcsnoke\|talk]]) 16:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Donutron: Donutron moved page Talk:Java Code Coverage Tools to Talk:Java code coverage tools: WP:NCCAPS

2018-09-02T15:46:31Z

Donutron moved page Talk:Java Code Coverage Tools to Talk:Java code coverage tools: WP:NCCAPS

← Previous revision	Revision as of 15:46, 2 September 2018
(No difference)

CodeCurmudgeon: fixed section head

2018-02-02T22:42:27Z

fixed section head

← Previous revision		Revision as of 22:42, 2 February 2018
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{Old AfD multi\|page=JaCoCo\|date=26 February 2013\|result='''keep'''}}		{{Old AfD multi\|page=JaCoCo\|date=26 February 2013\|result='''keep'''}}

	notable because:		==notable because:==
	* more mature, and popular than cobertura, or clover for [[Eclipse (software)]]:		* more mature, and popular than cobertura, or clover for [[Eclipse (software)]]:
	** http://marketplace.eclipse.org/node/264#.USyI28W_Ppt		** http://marketplace.eclipse.org/node/264#.USyI28W_Ppt

SineBot: Signing comment by 195.127.226.200 - "/* Why does "Cobertura" redirect here without being explained in the article? */ new section"

2014-01-14T13:46:01Z

Signing comment by 195.127.226.200 - "Why does "Cobertura" redirect here without being explained in the article?: new section"

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:46, 14 January 2014
Line 26:		Line 26:
	This article "grabs" the name but does not mention the software.		This article "grabs" the name but does not mention the software.

	Just because someone thinks Jacoco is "superior" to Cobertura, the latter should not be "extinct" from Wikipedia completely.		Just because someone thinks Jacoco is "superior" to Cobertura, the latter should not be "extinct" from Wikipedia completely. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.127.226.200\|195.127.226.200]] ([[User talk:195.127.226.200\|talk]]) 13:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

195.127.226.200: /* Why does "Cobertura" redirect here without being explained in the article? */ new section

2014-01-14T13:44:54Z

Why does "Cobertura" redirect here without being explained in the article?: new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:44, 14 January 2014
Line 19:		Line 19:
	:None of the sources mentioned in the article are significant coverage in reliable third party sources. EclEmma + JaCoCo yields 1 link on google books and it is a trivial mention. I'd like to invite you to actually participate in the AfD discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JaCoCo]]. [[User:Jarkeld\|Jarkeld]] ([[User talk:Jarkeld\|talk]]) 01:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)		:None of the sources mentioned in the article are significant coverage in reliable third party sources. EclEmma + JaCoCo yields 1 link on google books and it is a trivial mention. I'd like to invite you to actually participate in the AfD discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JaCoCo]]. [[User:Jarkeld\|Jarkeld]] ([[User talk:Jarkeld\|talk]]) 01:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
	:: hmm ... i understand where you are coming from, you do not like the references in the online user manuals. and right so, as [[WP:NSOFT]] speaks about "printed manuals". which is a little unfortunate (and archaic), as there are no printed manuals for IntelliJ, Eclipse, Netbeans, Sonar any more. and it leaves out that the usage of a tool is simple and there is not a lot of references. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion\| Afd main page]] suggests to consider alternatives. Merging jacoco, clover, cobertura, emma into "java code coverage tools" seems to be the most appealing alternative to me currently. what you think? --[[User:ThurnerRupert\|ThurnerRupert]] ([[User talk:ThurnerRupert\|talk]]) 12:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)		:: hmm ... i understand where you are coming from, you do not like the references in the online user manuals. and right so, as [[WP:NSOFT]] speaks about "printed manuals". which is a little unfortunate (and archaic), as there are no printed manuals for IntelliJ, Eclipse, Netbeans, Sonar any more. and it leaves out that the usage of a tool is simple and there is not a lot of references. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion\| Afd main page]] suggests to consider alternatives. Merging jacoco, clover, cobertura, emma into "java code coverage tools" seems to be the most appealing alternative to me currently. what you think? --[[User:ThurnerRupert\|ThurnerRupert]] ([[User talk:ThurnerRupert\|talk]]) 12:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

			== Why does "Cobertura" redirect here without being explained in the article? ==

			The cobertura project is alive and being maintained, see http://cobertura.github.io/cobertura/

			This article "grabs" the name but does not mention the software.

			Just because someone thinks Jacoco is "superior" to Cobertura, the latter should not be "extinct" from Wikipedia completely.

Northamerica1000: WikiProject tagging {{WP Software}}

2013-03-20T08:33:19Z

WikiProject tagging {{WP Software}}

← Previous revision		Revision as of 08:33, 20 March 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WP Software}}
	{{Old AfD multi\|page=JaCoCo\|date=26 February 2013\|result='''keep'''}}		{{Old AfD multi\|page=JaCoCo\|date=26 February 2013\|result='''keep'''}}

Northamerica1000: + {{Old AfD multi|page=JaCoCo|date=26 February 2013|result='''keep'''}}

2013-03-20T08:30:41Z

+ {{Old AfD multi|page=JaCoCo|date=26 February 2013|result='''keep'''}}

← Previous revision		Revision as of 08:30, 20 March 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Old AfD multi\|page=JaCoCo\|date=26 February 2013\|result='''keep'''}}

	notable because:		notable because:
	* more mature, and popular than cobertura, or clover for [[Eclipse (software)]]:		* more mature, and popular than cobertura, or clover for [[Eclipse (software)]]:

ThurnerRupert: ThurnerRupert moved page Talk:JaCoCo to Talk:Java Code Coverage Tools: too many controversial small tools, so collect them in one article.

2013-03-09T19:47:04Z

ThurnerRupert moved page Talk:JaCoCo to Talk:Java Code Coverage Tools: too many controversial small tools, so collect them in one article.

← Previous revision	Revision as of 19:47, 9 March 2013
(No difference)

ThurnerRupert at 12:16, 3 March 2013

2013-03-03T12:16:17Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 12:16, 3 March 2013
Line 15:		Line 15:
	[[User:Mandrikov\|Mandrikov]] ([[User talk:Mandrikov\|talk]]) 01:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)		[[User:Mandrikov\|Mandrikov]] ([[User talk:Mandrikov\|talk]]) 01:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
	:None of the sources mentioned in the article are significant coverage in reliable third party sources. EclEmma + JaCoCo yields 1 link on google books and it is a trivial mention. I'd like to invite you to actually participate in the AfD discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JaCoCo]]. [[User:Jarkeld\|Jarkeld]] ([[User talk:Jarkeld\|talk]]) 01:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)		:None of the sources mentioned in the article are significant coverage in reliable third party sources. EclEmma + JaCoCo yields 1 link on google books and it is a trivial mention. I'd like to invite you to actually participate in the AfD discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JaCoCo]]. [[User:Jarkeld\|Jarkeld]] ([[User talk:Jarkeld\|talk]]) 01:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
			:: hmm ... i understand where you are coming from, you do not like the references in the online user manuals. and right so, as [[WP:NSOFT]] speaks about "printed manuals". which is a little unfortunate (and archaic), as there are no printed manuals for IntelliJ, Eclipse, Netbeans, Sonar any more. and it leaves out that the usage of a tool is simple and there is not a lot of references. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion\| Afd main page]] suggests to consider alternatives. Merging jacoco, clover, cobertura, emma into "java code coverage tools" seems to be the most appealing alternative to me currently. what you think? --[[User:ThurnerRupert\|ThurnerRupert]] ([[User talk:ThurnerRupert\|talk]]) 12:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 12:16, 3 March 2013
Line 15:		Line 15:
	[[User:Mandrikov\|Mandrikov]] ([[User talk:Mandrikov\|talk]]) 01:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)		[[User:Mandrikov\|Mandrikov]] ([[User talk:Mandrikov\|talk]]) 01:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
	:None of the sources mentioned in the article are significant coverage in reliable third party sources. EclEmma + JaCoCo yields 1 link on google books and it is a trivial mention. I'd like to invite you to actually participate in the AfD discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JaCoCo]]. [[User:Jarkeld\|Jarkeld]] ([[User talk:Jarkeld\|talk]]) 01:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)		:None of the sources mentioned in the article are significant coverage in reliable third party sources. EclEmma + JaCoCo yields 1 link on google books and it is a trivial mention. I'd like to invite you to actually participate in the AfD discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JaCoCo]]. [[User:Jarkeld\|Jarkeld]] ([[User talk:Jarkeld\|talk]]) 01:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
			:: hmm ... i understand where you are coming from, you do not like the references in the online user manuals. and right so, as [[WP:NSOFT]] speaks about "printed manuals". which is a little unfortunate (and archaic), as there are no printed manuals for IntelliJ, Eclipse, Netbeans, Sonar any more. and it leaves out that the usage of a tool is simple and there is not a lot of references. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion\| Afd main page]] suggests to consider alternatives. Merging jacoco, clover, cobertura, emma into "java code coverage tools" seems to be the most appealing alternative to me currently. what you think? --[[User:ThurnerRupert\|ThurnerRupert]] ([[User talk:ThurnerRupert\|talk]]) 12:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)