Pangram verdict · v3.3
We believe that this entire text is human-written.
0 %
AI likelihood · overall
Human 100% human-written
0% AI-generated
Analyzed
Sep 16
backend: pangram/v3.3
Segments scanned
1 windows
avg 89 words each
Distribution
100 / 0%
human / AI fraction
Verdict
Human
Pangram v3.3
Article text · 89 words · 1 segments analyzed
Human
AI-generated
§1 Human · 0%
We are using Crap4J for years now within our JAVA projects and it's the only tool which identifies "dangerous" code. Even the Jenkins/Hudson integration is nice!All code coverage tools will deliver lot's of false positives.I don't have to test a method like:public Value getValue(){ return value;}That's common sense, but a tool like CodePro or JaCoCo forces me to write dumb tests.Only Crap4J rocks that way, even it has not been modified since a couple of years.Now it's time to do something, because JAVA7 code is not running with Crap4J!ReplyDelete