On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:58:20 Walter Bright wrote: > On 4/3/2013 11:44 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > Yes. My point was that 100% should be the goal, whereas I know a number of > > developers who consider something like 70% to be sufficient - and these > > are > > folks who actually believe in writing unit tests. Certainly, expecting to > > hit 100% with -cov on the first try isn't generally very realistic unless > > you're always extremely thorough with your tests, and even then, it's > > easy to miss a line or two on rarer branches, especially as functions > > become more complex. > Cov testing also has a tendency to expose dead code - not just insufficient > unit tests.
Good point. That's not something that I typically think of - though in a lot of cases (for me personally at least), I think that the greater risk would be functions which weren't called at all by other code but _were_ properly tested, and -cov wouldn't catch that. But finding dead code with cov is definitely something to remember. I should cov more often anyway. Too often, given how thorough I generally am with unit tests, I tend to assume that the code coverage is there - and it probably is, but it's best to be sure. - Jonathan M Davis