Re: code coverage report for ofbiz run-tests call

[Scott Gray]

On 11/12/2009, at 12:34 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

Scott Gray wrote:

Note that framework/base has almost 100% coverage.  But that's a bad
thing, because it's not explicitly testing it; all that code just
happens to be utilized during the rest of the test run.

is the current 100% coverage a bad thing?  I mean implied testing is

level tests would fail.

Of course explicitly testing framework/base would be much better but why better than no testing right? If I was to go in and incorrectly modify some of those base methods then there's a good chance some of the higher

In theory such explicit base testing could be run from the command
line, very quickly, using the newly added 'tests' target defined in
common.xml.

Additionally, just because a line has been noted in cobertura, doesn't
mean all variations have been tested.  Consider the case that some
condition is doing some kind of pattern match, or looking at
Collection.contains or Map.containsKey.  It's much simpler to verify
that everything is tested when it is done explicitly.

Okay I see what you mean now, it's a bad thing that coverage is reported without explicit thorough testing. Even though the indirect coverage is still better than no coverage whatsoever.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature