Re: Bug 38840 - Adding coverage analysis to unit tests

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com> wrote:
> (at least for the given case of our LO code base, which is not too heavily
> loaded with dedicated tests to begin with).
Well at the moment there may not be a lot of testcases. But I get the
impression that the whole reason for adding test coverage in the 1st
place, is that (much) more tests are intended to be added in the
future for covering the code that isnt tested yet ? And if that is the
case, wouldnt it make more sense to cleanly separate 'building your
project' and 'testing your project' ? I dont get the impression that
everyone that compiles the code will be interested in all checks being
executed, especially once there are more tests. For the future, it
might make more sense if 'make build' (or something similar) only
compiles the code without running the tests, and that the tests only
get executed if 'make check' is run ?

Just my 2$


Regards,


John Smith.