function readOnly(count){ }
Sign Up ›
Starting November 20, the site will be set to read-only. On December 4, 2023,
forum discussions will move to the Trailblazer Community.
Learn More

Browse by Topic
ShowAll Questionssorted byDate Posted
+ Start a Discussion
maltesmaltes 

Viewing code coverage shows empty page for managed classes!

Trying to view the code coverage of class labeled as "managed" by clicking on the number in the Column "Codecoverage" in the overview of all my Apex-Classes I only get an empty page!

Viewing the Codecoverage for a class which is not labeled as "managed" does work fine!

Does anyone have a solution for this?

It is a bit annoying writing tests for a class without beeing able to see what is not yet covered...

Thank you!

vbsvbs
Your tests do not need to cover class in managed packages. During deployment only test coverage in your own namespace is verified independently of the managed package. The managed package should already have working test classes of its own.
JDegnerJDegner

I have the same problem. I'm working on upgrades to a managed package I developed, and I can't see the code coverage page either since my classes belong to a managed package. It's not impossible to do code coverage without it, but much more of a pain. I contacted Salesforce support via chat yesterday, and was told there is still no work around and product managers are working diligently to get the issue resolved. I was also told to monitor success.salesforce.com for updates. Here is a link to the known issue: https://success.salesforce.com/issues_view?id=a1p30000000SzHiAAK
maltesmaltes

I some kind of work around by now: In the Force.com IDE you can do Right click->Force.com->Run Tests

Then there will be in the Apex Test Runner-View an overview which classes have how much test coverage. You can click on each an it will tell you which line is not tested. It's a bit complicated, but better than nothing.

Strange that although the product managers are working "diligently" to get the issue resolved you were told there is still no work around when oviously there is one actually...