On 11/3/2003 12:20 PM, Tim Bunce wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 05:33:09PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> Right now, if your cover_db holds data for a dozen files, but you test them >> one at a time, you have to read and write *all* the coverage data (as well >> as have the RAM to hold it). That's a lot of unnecessary work and wasted >> memory. > > Generally there'll be a set of driving scripts (eg test scripts) and a bunch > of modules being used by the driving script. Coverage for most of the module > source files would be generated by most of the tests. Or am I missing > something (I've not looked closely, still).
I probably just have a different perspective. Right now, I'm writing an application that's broken into a dozen or so modules. The test suite shares a common cover_db, and reading and rewriting the data for the modules I'm not currently testing takes extra time. To some degree, my position is just based on good software design -- don't use a bunch of memory or do a bunch of work if you don't need to. It might not matter for small dbs, but it doesn't scale. -mjc
