different definitions of test ;-) code touched seems like a much less useful metric than code specifically tested, but i could be convinced otherwise.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <[email protected] > wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Erik Bernhardson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) < > [email protected] > >> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Antoine Musso <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> In June I enforced a PHPUnit feature which force us to mention which > >> > MediaWiki function is covered by a test method [FORCE COVER]. > >> > >> Why is this desirable? > >> > >> > > In my experience this is desirable in order to only mark the particular > > code you are testing as covered. So for example if you are testing > > database functions, you don't want it to mark wfRunHooks and friends as > > "covered" when it just happened to be called but wasn't specifically > tested. > > On the other hand, you *did* test part of wfRunHooks, even if indirectly. > > > -- > Brad Jorsch (Anomie) > Software Engineer > Wikimedia Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
