Nice one. I totally missed the reference! (Perhaps I'm not playing enough violent video games... ;)
Yes that's pretty much what I meant by #2. My overall point was that a lot of developers misunderstand what code coverage means, and I really like the idea of the Cx scale which helps to explain what the mysterious coverage metric actually tells you. The thing is that even if you have 100% coverage, this really tells you nothing about the quality of your tests. Heckle takes the coverage concept further and mutates your code and fails if a test doesn't break. This helps you write better tests by adding appropriate assertions. That said you still need to manually check your tests are actually testing the right thing... Josh On 21/11/2008, at 1:35 PM, Andrew Grimm wrote: > C-4 was meant as a pun, alluding to > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_(explosive) > > What's meant by #2? That the requirements are correct, and that the > assertions reflect the requirements? > > Andrew > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Josh Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The discussion of the different types of coverage is interesting. I > hadn't actually seen the C0/C1/C2 definitions before. > > The interesting thing about code coverage is that it only ever tells > you definitively that code *isn't* covered. It doesn't tell you > whether: > > 1) any assertions were made about the code that was run by your > tests, or > 2) if assertions were made, that they were correct. > > Heckle as an expression mutator achieves #1, but does it really fit > in the same scale (ie C4) as coverage? > > Perhaps only a human can truly achieve #2. > > Josh > > On 20/11/2008, at 10:02 PM, Andrew Grimm wrote: > >> 'twas I! >> >> I happened to add question http://eigenclass.org/hiki/rcov+FAQ#l9 >> to the FAQ. >> >> Weren't we disagreeing on whether rcov provides anything more than >> C0, rather than the definition of C1 and C2 (is heckle C-4?) >> >> The stack overflow question I was discussing was >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/289321/does-c1-code-coverage-analysis-exist-for-ruby >> >> Andrew >> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Nathan de Vries >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> While we're on the topic of code coverage...to whoever I was >> talking to about rcov, my definitions of C0/C1/C2 were incorrect, >> so if you'd like to read up on exactly what they mean I'd suggest >> you check out Mauricio Fernandez's description [1]. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> Nathan de Vries >> >> [1] http://eigenclass.org/hiki/rcov >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to rails-oceania@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
