The discussion of the different types of coverage is interesting. I hadn't actually seen the C0/C1/C2 definitions before.
The interesting thing about code coverage is that it only ever tells you definitively that code *isn't* covered. It doesn't tell you whether: 1) any assertions were made about the code that was run by your tests, or 2) if assertions were made, that they were correct. Heckle as an expression mutator achieves #1, but does it really fit in the same scale (ie C4) as coverage? Perhaps only a human can truly achieve #2. Josh On 20/11/2008, at 10:02 PM, Andrew Grimm wrote: > 'twas I! > > I happened to add question http://eigenclass.org/hiki/rcov+FAQ#l9 to > the FAQ. > > Weren't we disagreeing on whether rcov provides anything more than > C0, rather than the definition of C1 and C2 (is heckle C-4?) > > The stack overflow question I was discussing was > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/289321/does-c1-code-coverage-analysis-exist-for-ruby > > Andrew > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Nathan de Vries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > While we're on the topic of code coverage...to whoever I was talking > to about rcov, my definitions of C0/C1/C2 were incorrect, so if > you'd like to read up on exactly what they mean I'd suggest you > check out Mauricio Fernandez's description [1]. > > > Cheers, > > -- > Nathan de Vries > > [1] http://eigenclass.org/hiki/rcov > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
