Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index


On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Philipp Riemer <ruderphilipp@gmail.com> wrote:

As far as I learned in my Softw. Eng. courses, the main intent of this
type of code coverage is _not_ to show which parts are under test but
primarily to point out which parts are not tested at all so far.

Yes, of course.



And as one can (now fortunately) see there are still quite some lines
of code that are not touched during the tests... But now we all have a
much better overview what parts are exactly missing tests -- which at
least from my perspective is much better than just guessing and gut
feeling! Thank you very much for all your great work so far, John!

Im still not convinced 'my' coverage report shows this *exactly*.




Of course, in future, every bug should get a unit test (at best even
before starting to fix it) so that regressions are easier get caught
;-)

In the ideal world, yes, of course.
;)



In addition, it would be also good, to have two reports: (1) with only
the unit test coverage and (2) one where all test, including
integration tests etc., were executed.
Huh ? what ?



Regards,

John Smith.

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.