Artur Zagretdinov

@johanhaleby, > Personally I would be fine with only supporting (i). What do you think @thekingnothing? I think we can limit to use one class loader, but there are boundary...

@jlink I think it's what we need and it will suffice most cases. Will the `TestInstanceClassLoaderProvider` be called once?

And yes, in case if `TestInstanceClassLoaderProvider` is added, then #203 will be redundant.

@jlink, I'd like to suggest the following semantic for the `provide` method. If it reruns `null`, then test container will continue use the current class loader. Otherwise the returned class...

@Tibor17 PowerMock split tests into chunks (a chunk per `@PrepareForTest` annotation), then creates a new Class Loader for each chuck and load everything with this class loader when starts a...

PowerMock team were trying to tackle the issue with Jacoco (https://github.com/jayway/powermock/issues/645) with ignoring methods base on some configurable filter, but this it's still in progress. Then I found the In...

@marchof Thank you for answer. My vision of a test for offline case: 1. Create a test with PowerMock. Prepare for test some class, then call not mocked methods 2....

@marchof, I supposed that they could run within a one JVM. Just, create a new class loader, load `JUnitCore` with the created class loader, load test class and then call...

@marchof thank you for example. I'll write a test in few days. Maybe you have guesses about what else I have to do from PowerMock's side to fix an issue....

@marchof and @Godin, thank you a lot for the help. I fixed the issue in PowerMock. At long last PowerMock works with Jacoco and coverage is calculated. At least, it...