Havoc Pennington wrote: > Tim Janik wrote: > > > > ah, interesting. could you please explain why you consider it > > such a big win? > > > > Without it I think I usually write about 10% coverage, and imagine in my > mind that it is 50% or so ;-) I'm guessing this is pretty common. > > With it, it was easy to just browse and say "OK, this part isn't tested > yet, this part is tested too much so we can speed up the tests," etc. > > Also, if someone submits a patch with tests, you can see if their tests > are even exercising their code. > > It just gives you a way to know how well you're doing and see what else > needs doing.
Sure! Tim, you can take a look here to see this in practice: http://gtktests-buildbot.igalia.com/gnomeslave/gtk+/lcov/gtk/index.html Those are the code coverage results for the tests I developed. As you browse the files you realize the code that is tested (blue) and the code that is not (red). I think this helps with: * Realizing which code your tests are actually covering. * Designing new tests so they are not redundant. * Analyze which execution branches are not tested for a given interface. * Easily check which files have more tests and which ones need more testing work based on coverage %. Iago. _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list