On 28/03/2008, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 28 March 2008 14:22:32 Gabor Szabo wrote: > > > I think chromatic mentioned that you should use FIT for acceptance tests > > and not for unit tests. > > May I disagree here. > > I think every test is a unit test. Just the size of the units is different. > > > "Unit test" has a very precise meaning in this context. The purpose and goals > of these tests are very different than the purpose of unit tests. > > It makes little sense to discuss the code coverage of FIT tests, while it > makes plenty of sense to discuss the code coverage of unit tests, for > example.
Why not? If the tests don't get 100% code coverage of the relevant code then that points to gaps in the test or possibly incorrect implementation. Of course the FIT users can't interpret the coverage results on their own, they need to cooperate with the developers and there's also the issue of identifying the relevant code but coverage seems to be just as useful here as anywhere else, F > > -- c >
