dan nessett wrote: > I decided to investigate how well parserTests exercises the MW code. So, I > threw together a couple of MacGyver tools that use xdebug's code coverage > capability and analyzed the results. The results are very, very preliminary, > but I thought I would get them out so others can look them over. In the next > couple of days I hope to post more detailed results and the tools themselves > on the Mediawiki wiki. (If someone could tell me the appropriate page to use > that would be useful. Otherwise, I will just create a page in my own > namespace). > > The statistics (again very preliminary) are: > > Number of files exercised: 141 Number of lines in those files: 85606 > Lines covered: 59489 Lines not covered: 26117 Percentage covered: > 0.694916244188 > > So, parserTests is getting (at best) about 70% code coverage. This is better > than I expected, but still it means parserTests does not test 26117 lines of > code. What I mean by "at best" is xdebug just notes whether a line of code is > visited. It doesn't do any logic analysis on which branches are taken. > Furthermore, parserTests may not visit some files that are critical to the > operation of the MW software. Obviously, xdebug can only gather statistics on > visited files. > > I want to emphasize that there may be errors in these results due to bad > assumptions on my part or bad coding. However, it is a place to start. >
Well, they are *parser* tests, they are not intended to cover Special:Version or something else. --vvv _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
