I have been wanting code coverage forever +1
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > Cool stuff Brent! > > +1 > > On 1/4/13 10:46 AM, "Dan Silivestru" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >I'm 100% behind having some sort of code coverage solution in place. > >Simply > >counting the number of assertions we have doesn't give us as much > >confidence as I would like to have. > > > >I do somewhat disagree that the node tests are more important the the > >browser tests. I would at a minimum put them on par since Ripple does run > >in the browser :-) But I think starting with code coverage for node only > >is > >a very good first step. > > > >So... long way of me saying... +1 :) > > > > > >On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Brent Lintner > ><[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> Hey all, > >> > >> So, I have been using a (recently) new project called CoverJS in one of > >>my > >> personal (side projects), and I am finding it really useful and easy to > >> use/setup when it comes to test code coverage in JS. > >> > >> https://npmjs.org/package/coverjs > >> > >> My proposal is to add support for test code coverage to Ripple (as test > >> coverage is something I've really wanted to see go into the development > >> workflow of Ripple). It is still in some early stages, but I think it > >>would > >> be a great project to adopt (even initially) as the code coverage > >>tooling > >> for this project. If it it needs to be changed, it should not be too > >> difficult to rip out or replace, and this does not affect the normal > >>way of > >> running tests. > >> > >> I.e. Check it out in my fork (first and only commit) --> > >> https://github.com/brentlintner/Ripple-UI/tree/test.cov > >> > >> Since I had already done the setup in my side project, it was quite > >>easy to > >> get it working in Ripple (although I had to wait to submit it until an > >> upstream bug was fixed in CoverJS). The only pitfall here is it > >>currently > >> only works when running the tests with the nodejs runner (vs the browser > >> based test runner, which, IMO is less primary than the node runner, > >> anyways). However, it is still very useful when testing (even after > >>using > >> it a few times). > >> > >> Thoughts? Yay/Nay? > >> > >> I was hoping to issue a Pull Request soon (if it is a welcomed idea). > >>:-) > >> > >> -- > >> Brent > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >Dan Silivestru > >+1 (519) 589-3624 > >
