On 4/3/2013 10:58 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If you push for the lines of unit testing code to be kept to a minimum, I
don't see how you can possibly expect stuff to be thoroughly tested.
My idea of perfection would be 100% coverage with zero redundancy in the
unittests.
In my experience with testing, the technique of "quantity has a quality all its
own" style of testing does not produce adequate test coverage - it just simply
takes a lot of time to run (which makes it less useful, as one then tends to
avoid running them).
