On 9/25/11, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday, September 25, 2011 04:16:02 Andrej Mitrovic wrote: >> Maybe it's best to keep unittest code really simple. > > That has always been my take on it. Sometimes, you're forced to make it more > complicated, but if your unit tests are complicated, then there's a higher > risk of bugs in them, which makes it more likely that they won't catch bugs > in > your code. It's bad enough having to debug the real code. I don't want to > have > to debug my unit tests as well. I definitely think that unit tests should > almost always be dead-brain simple. > > - Jonathan M Davis >
Yeah. I would however like to know how much code-coverage I have in my unittests. I don't know if this is implementable in the compiler, but maybe a tool could figure this out. I think some C++ or Pascal unittest facilities actually had something like that and could give you a rough percentage of how much code is unittested.
