On Friday, 29 July 2016 at 05:49:01 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 22:12:58 Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
As soon as we start taking the % coverage too seriously, we
are in trouble. It's never going to be cut and dried what
should be tested and what is unreasonable to test, and I see
no point in arguing about it.
The % is a useful indicator, that is all. It is not a
substitute for thought.
As always, use good judgement.
True, but particularly when you start doing stuff like trying
to require that modules have 100% coverage - or that the
coverage not be reduced by a change - it starts mattering -
especially if it's done with build tools. The current situation
is far from the end of the world, but I definitely think that
we'd be better off if we fixed some of these issues so that the
percentage reflected the amount of the actual code that's
covered rather than having unit tests, assert(0) statements,
invariants, etc. start affecting code coverage when they aren't
what you're trying to cover at all.
- Jonathan M Davis
Yep especially because I think we agree that "coverage [should]
not be reduced by a change", except there is a pretty good reason
to do so?
It could have the negative effect that people won't use such
techniques anymore (e.g. debugging in unittests, invariants, ...)
as they might develop an evil smell.
