Hi Kelvin, Getting the CTS structured in a way that better reflects exactly what APIs are being tested sounds like a great idea to me. I also like the idea of stub tests so that anybody, with a little time to spare, can easily write/contribute a missing test.
Frank. "kelvin goodson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/05/2007 07:12:26 AM: > I've been thinking about the CTS a bit lately; trying to take stock of > what we've got, and how we measure up. The CTS went through a period > of healthy growth a while back, but I didn't manage to get a good feel > for how well we were covering the API combined with the range of > possible inputs to it. I ran the maven clover plugin to try to get > some idea of how well we cover the API, but the results show coverage > for the implementation classes, and it's not easy to get a good > picture for how good the coverage of SDO API interface from that data > (For example, there's much code in the Tuscany SDO implementation to > support generated code which of course doesn't get exercised by the > CTS). Does anyone know of good techniques for getting pure API > coverage data? > > It would be good to get some structure into the CTS to make it more > evident in the test code what is covered, and what is not. I'm > thinking about perhaps restructuring and adding to the tests to > achieve this. I may end up just adding stub tests in the first place > in some places to highlight the fact that we are deficient in that > area. > > Kelvin. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
