I don’t think littering your code with state variable and branches just to test
is in anyway a good (or sustainable approach) approach. I have never seen any
large scale project that did this - but could be my ignorance.
> On Apr 13, 2020, at 12:13 PM, 'K Richard Pixley' via golang-nuts
> <golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> I like this solution better than Ian's, thank you.
>
> If I can't eliminate an error, or fake it, add a new one. :).
>
>> On 4/12/20 4:04 PM, Rob Pike wrote:
>> I am the author of the test coverage tool, and I do not believe that 100%
>> code coverage is the right goal. Coverage is a proxy for testing quality,
>> but not a guarantee of it. Getting to 100% coverage is a better indicator of
>> chasing metrics than of actually writing good tests. I'm happy if my
>> coverage gets into the 90% range, but then I try to write a lot of if
>> statements protecting against the impossible.
>>
>> If you really do need to verify that your code works when the impossible
>> happens, you can do that. Say you have code like this:
>>
>> err := neverFails()
>> if err != nil {
>> zounds()
>> return err
>> }
>>
>> and you want to verify that zounds gets called when the impossible failure
>> occurs. That's a reasonable thing to want to do, and you can test for that
>> by writing instead:
>>
>> err := neverFails()
>> if failureTrigger || err != nil {
>> zounds()
>> return err
>> }
>>
>> Then you declare the variable failureTrigger and in the test write:
>>
>> func TestWhatIfNeverIsToday(t *testing.T) {
>> failureTrigger = true
>> defer func() { failureTrigger = false }
>> call code....
>> test that zounds is invoked.
>> }
>>
>> -rob
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 11:55 PM Kevin Malachowski <niftasti...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Is there a particular reason you want 100% code coverage?
>>>
>>> Not trying to start a flame war: given limited time and effort, unless the
>>> rest of my projects had 100% coverage already, I would personally spend my
>>> time working with a package with lower coverage, or just fixing known bugs.
>>> If your codebase has no bugs and otherwise full coverage... I have to say
>>> I'm jealous :)
>>>
>>> In any case, one way to test your application's handling of an error from
>>> that function is to fake it out during unit tests (simple example, let me
>>> know if you want a more thorough one:
>>> https://play.golang.org/p/uKGFLYVlQxz). Of course this does not test the
>>> "integration" of your application code and ioutil.ReadDir, but IMHO trying
>>> to get extremely high code coverage in non-unit tests is really a time sink.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "golang-nuts" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/1908d64d-fb3f-4d73-9302-b215c49dac36%40googlegroups.com.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "golang-nuts" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOXNBZRz_7%3DQpWtXv%2BE1VYHvRS_SjNb%2B8-1MXOeB7Xk8r_rb3Q%40mail.gmail.com.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "golang-nuts" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/920f13fe-48ed-bbcc-926c-9351877b4180%40juniper.net.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/FC73F966-26C5-4343-A3C3-5B25175C21C3%40ix.netcom.com.
