Jim Yes 80% was a surprise. But I agree with you on the actual % not being a big thing as compared to what is being covered. jWebUnit will be goverened by the 80:20 rule as like anybody else. ie probably 20% of our code is the critical path.
So is the 80% coverage really the "ideal" 80% is the question. I think the answer is yes. The tool actually lets you drill down up the source code line level. So one gets to see what did not get covered. I liked what I saw (some getters, setters etc) In any case, the tool is open source so I will integrate the whole thing and publish this weekend. That way, everybody can view the results. Regards Vivek --- James E Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Well, > > That's a good percentage - a bit better than I would > have expected. > Application of a test coverage tool is nice - > presumably it can drill down > on the packages a bit more and show us where the > misses mostly are. The > Pseudo Server borrowed from jWebUnit is a pain to > maintain a copy of, but > it did allow for pretty easy to read and thorough > testing. A simpler > alternative to the pseudo server was another item on > my todo list ages ago. > > Good going vivek. > > We just had a thread on a TW development list about > "what percentage of > coverage is good coverage". Most leaned towards > 90-something, but one of > my favorite posts was this one by Mike Two (I don't > think he'll mind me > quoting him here): > > "Attaching any particular number is a waste of time. > Use your head, be > pragmatic and measure coverage often. When you do > measure it don't worry > about the number, worry about the trends. Do some > analysis to figure out > what is or isn't getting covered and make some > decisions about it. > > Be afraid of rules like, "we must have 95% > coverage". Measurement of a > system changes the system. Since catch blocks are > frequently mentioned as a > problem and not so easy to test a lazy developer may > start writing "catch > (Exception)" so that they only have one untested > catch block. Or moving the > catch block higher up the method stack or writing > long methods with one big > try catch to keep the percentages of covered code > up. > > I've seen projects with 30% coverage and almost no > bugs, I've seen projects > with 90% coverage and a ton of bugs. Your tests can > cover everything and > still suck. Run coverage once in a while, ignore the > percentage number and > look for trends in namespaces and classes that > aren't covered." > > Jim > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: GNOME Foundation > Hackers Unite! GUADEC: The world's #1 Open Source > Desktop Event. > GNOME Users and Developers European Conference, > 28-30th June in Norway > http://2004/guadec.org > _______________________________________________ > Jwebunit-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jwebunit-development __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: GNOME Foundation Hackers Unite! GUADEC: The world's #1 Open Source Desktop Event. GNOME Users and Developers European Conference, 28-30th June in Norway http://2004/guadec.org _______________________________________________ Jwebunit-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jwebunit-development
