Rocco Caputo wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:09:38PM +0200, James Mastros wrote:
All unreachable code is either people misusing the term unreachable, a
bug in Devel::Cover, or dead code that should be removed.
Here's a puzzle, then.
I just ran into a similar problem in POE::Driver::SysRW. For
Pete Krawczyk wrote:
Consider the following code:
$impclass ||= implementor($scheme) ||
do {
require URI::_foreign;
$impclass = 'URI::_foreign';
};
That's in URI.pm, lines 54-58.
Devel::Cover treats that as a conditional. So short of deleting
On Jul 11, 2004, at 4:09 PM, James Mastros wrote:
package Foo;
sub new {
my $class=shift;
$class=ref($class)||$class;
bless [], $class;
}
eval { Foo::new(); }
is($!, new dies when called as a function);
Actually this doesn't die, it does even worse, given this code:
package Foo;
sub new {
On Jul 9, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Andy Lester wrote:
Don't be mesmerized by 100% coverage.
Agreed 100% here. However, I stand by my original statement that you
CAN have 100% coverage on subroutines and pod. Any disagreement on
that
one?
I agree with having 100% on subroutines, and I would add that
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 12:26:44PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
As for POD, in most cases, I agree with you, but to say you should have
100% POD coverage brings up several other questions, such as; Should I
document private methods?
IMPO yes, but Pod::Coverage (and thus Devel::Cover) will
Micheal,
On Jul 11, 2004, at 2:09 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 12:26:44PM -0400, stevan little wrote:
As for POD, in most cases, I agree with you, but to say you should
have
100% POD coverage brings up several other questions, such as; Should I
document private methods?
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Test coverage is a useful *heuristic* for test effectiveness. Like all
heuristics if you push it too far it falls apart. Get as close to 100% as
is useful and don't worry about the rest.
Indeed. Brian Marick wrote a great paper on this topic - How to Misuse
Code
There's a whole set of these sort of problems.
sub new {
my $proto = shift;
my $class = ref $proto || $proto;
In this case, we probably don't want that ANYWAY. That's what I did
when I was through Data::Page for Leon Brocard, and it's now at 100%
coverage, across the
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 12:10:52PM -0500, Pete Krawczyk wrote:
Consider the following code:
$impclass ||= implementor($scheme) ||
do {
require URI::_foreign;
$impclass = 'URI::_foreign';
};
That's in URI.pm, lines 54-58.
Devel::Cover treats
* Pete Krawczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-09T13:10:52]
Devel::Cover will always see that as a partial test, and never a full
test:
[ ... ]
Is that a bug, then? Or is it something else? And how should I notate
that, keeping in mind the goals of Phalanx, so that it's clearly visible
that
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:06:09PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
There's a whole set of these sort of problems.
Looking through a coverage analysis I just ran, here's some more idioms
that trip up 100% coverage.
my $foo = $bar || '';
my $foo = $bar || 1;
$this ||
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 06:31:09PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Looking through a coverage analysis I just ran, here's some more idioms
that trip up 100% coverage.
my $foo = $bar || '';
my $foo = $bar || 1;
$this || return;
Basically anything of the $foo ||
On 7/9/2004 4:57 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 12:10:52PM -0500, Pete Krawczyk wrote:
Consider [code with unreachable path] Devel::Cover will always see that as
a partial test, and never a full test: Is that a bug, then?
That's for you to decide. The lack of coverage serves
13 matches
Mail list logo
