On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 07:31:20PM +0200, Tels wrote: > On 21-Oct-01 Paul Johnson tried to scribble about: > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 10:42:33PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 12:07:26AM -0600, chromatic wrote: > >> > > - Of those covered, a smidge less than half have < 75% statement > >> > > coverage. - " > >> > > " " , 20% have < 50% statement coverage. > > I ran this last night, and supply the results here without comment save: > > Good work! (I see my modules ;) > > Some hints, though: > > You could leave of *.t files. The test's own coverage is not very > interesting, since most testsuites probably are supposed to not be covered > 100%. F.i. bigintpm.t runs some tests different based on your system, and I > bet others do so, too. So you can't achieve 100% anyway.
Certainly there is a lot that could do with cleaning up, but I wanted to throw out the first pass so people could get a feel for it. You're right that platform specific cod is going to skew the figures somewhat. [ I liked that typo so much I decided to keep it :-) ] > Of course, somebody might be interested in why some test files have poor > coverage ;) This can be useful on occasion. > I tried to view my modules, but your server is currently melting and can't > deliver the HUGE html documents :/ I keep getting hit by things that think I am running Micros~1 stuff :-( Looks like you have it now, but let me know if that's not the case. -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net