Re: Bug 38840 - Adding coverage analysis to unit tests

On 08/24/2012 06:31 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com> wrote:
> > In a sense, even during the tests, very much of our code is executed "by
> > accident" rather than due to dedicated test code calling it:  Especially the
> > subsequentcheck stuff contains checks that are not simple unit tests, but
> > start of a complete soffice.bin process, causing "unintended" testing of
> > large parts of the infrastructure code anyway.
> Whether code gets tested 'unintended' or not during your 'tests' is
> really not relevant, is it ? Only if the code gets executed or not ?

That it is not relevant would be my interpretation, too (at least for 
the given case of our LO code base, which is not too heavily loaded with 
dedicated tests to begin with).  And that's why I asked why you only use 
that delta anyway.  :)

Stephan