On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 2:50 PM, lacton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:28 AM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 4:15 AM, lacton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> One thing I don't understand is how rcov chooses which ruby files >>> should be included in the test coverage report. For instance, why >>> does it exclude the addon directory? >> >> Actually, things are in addon because they don't have much (read: any) >> test coverage :-) >> >> spec/spec_helpers.rb includes lib directory in $LOAD_PATH, and then >> loads all of buildr so rcov knows to analyze these files. There are >> no specs that load anything from addon, I know you have a few, I'm >> guessing without including addon in $LOAD_PATH, so the tested code >> probably comes from the gem directory, and that gets excluded. > > I'm glad to report I'm getting 100% code coverage for both > cobertura.rb and emma.rb with the pending new tests! > > Yet, I'm feeling these figures are somewhat optimistic. We don't know > the path coverage, which would probably be lower.
It measures line coverage, but not every possible execution path: http://www.pervasivecode.com/blog/2007/07/11/rcov-c0-line-coverage-more-generous-than-emmas-c1-bytecode-coverage/ Assaf > > Lacton > >> Assaf >
