On 20 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe the MT tools are clever enough to tell you which tests are most > worthwhile -- but I doubt it. The mutations I've heard about (though > probably not all of the ones that are used) are fairly simplistic and don't > seem to be the sort of thing that's likely to identify real show-stopping > bugs.
There's another approach: pick a function and chop out some code by hand. See if your tests past. If they do, then think about whether the code still needs to be there, or whether/why you feel comfortable having the code be there but not tested. If they don't pass, feel happy. This is a little like doing retroactive TDD. I'm not sure it's really worthwhile on existing "working" code but it can be interesting. -- Martin _______________________________________________ coders mailing list coders@slug.org.au http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/coders
