On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:27:14AM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > [RESEND with more tests and higher coverage] > > I'm undecided about this patch series ☹ - feedback needed. > > It's goal is to take advantage of the fact that htools can use “offline” > data files and thus doesn't need access to a live cluster. That it does > well. > > The downside is that, not having a nice shell-level testing framework, > this is all done in a hackish way, and if the tests fail you can't do > anything except use "bash -x" and hope for the best. > > Code coverage is awesome now: > 76% expressions used (9196/12021) > 52% boolean coverage (112/214) > 52% guards (64/121), 20 always True, 17 always False, 20 unevaluated > 50% 'if' conditions (45/90), 14 always True, 18 always False, 13 > unevaluated > 100% qualifiers (3/3) > 61% alternatives used (509/824) > 94% local declarations used (551/584) > 70% top-level declarations used (439/627)
AAAAAAAA. Forget it. I sent the wrong patches ☹ iustin
