i ran a coverage analysis with EclEmma [0] (recommended by Al Maw for the occasional check [1]), and posted the results to my p.a.o site [2].
i don't know about the reliability of the results, but if this is anywhere near correct, everybody knows in what areas wicket lacks unit tests -> patches welcome ;) Cheers, Gerolf [0] http://www.eclemma.org [1] http://herebebeasties.com/2007-06-20/eclemma-code-coverage-made-easy/ [2] http://people.apache.org/~gseitz/wicket-coverage/ On Dec 3, 2007 2:11 AM, Ryan Sonnek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just curious if anyone has run clover or cobertura maven reports > against the codebase to see what kind of unit test coverage their > currently is. I have *no* doubt that wicket's unit test coverage is > *extremely* high compared to other web frameworks, but it might be > good to see if there are any important gaps (like this) that need > coverage. > > From a community perspective, I know I would be comfortable > contributing unit tests to help out. > > On Dec 2, 2007 6:24 PM, Gerolf Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > hi all, > > > > there has been an issue, that ajax related unit tests didn't test with > an > > ajax request, > > but rather with a normal request[0]. > > as a consequence, the generated markup inside the ajax response was > actually > > the markup for normal requests > > (eg. included wicket tags and wicket attributes, which is not the case > for > > "real" ajax responses). > > > > the effect of this change is, that your ajax related unit tests will > > probably fail with the current trunk. > > i expect that most failed tests can be fixed by correcting the expected > ajax > > result. > > > > it's rather unfortunate that this happens so close to the 1.3.0 final > > release, but then again it's fortunate > > that we caught it before the release at all ;) > > > > as usual, if there are any questions left unanswered, don't hesitate to > > ask/complain/investigate/... > > > > Regards, > > Gerolf > > > > [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1199 > > >
