Scott Gray wrote: >> Note that framework/base has almost 100% coverage. But that's a bad >> thing, because it's not explicitly testing it; all that code just >> happens to be utilized during the rest of the test run. > > Of course explicitly testing framework/base would be much better but why > is the current 100% coverage a bad thing? I mean implied testing is > better than no testing right? If I was to go in and incorrectly modify > some of those base methods then there's a good chance some of the higher > level tests would fail.
In theory such explicit base testing could be run from the command line, very quickly, using the newly added 'tests' target defined in common.xml. Additionally, just because a line has been noted in cobertura, doesn't mean all variations have been tested. Consider the case that some condition is doing some kind of pattern match, or looking at Collection.contains or Map.containsKey. It's much simpler to verify that everything is tested when it is done explicitly.
