I've wedged coverage analysis into Test::Harness (not quite ready for
release yet) and ran it over Perl's core test suite to see how well
the core modules are covered. I'm not 100% sure about this data,
Devel::Coverage needs alot of work and reported alot of false
negatives, but I think I can mak
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:59:57PM -0500, Fisher Mark wrote:
> >Some very important things are not covered: AutoSplit, CPAN, Cwd,
> >Data::Dumper, MakeMaker, Pod::Html, Pod::Man and Term::ReadLine.
>
> I don't know about the others, but I had to patch t/lib/dumper.t so that
> patch 8750 (One-at-a
>Some very important things are not covered: AutoSplit, CPAN, Cwd,
>Data::Dumper, MakeMaker, Pod::Html, Pod::Man and Term::ReadLine.
I don't know about the others, but I had to patch t/lib/dumper.t so that
patch 8750 (One-at-a-Time key hashing function) could run cleanly. That
tests Data::Dumper
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "schwern"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Going back eight months, this was the state of things. Schwern had just added
coverage analysis to Test::Harness:
> - A bit less than half of all the core libraries have no coverage at all.
>
> Some very important things are
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.
>
> Is it possible to get an update on this? Writing a new test from
> scratch is generally harder t
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.
> >
> > Is it possible to ge
On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 10:37:01PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
> By the way, I got rid of perl-qa-metrics. It's basically dead, right?
Basically.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job
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.
> >
> > Is it possible to ge
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 hav
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 07:40:11PM +0200, Tels wrote:
> Thank you for your work! I looked at BigFloat.pm, noticed a untested line
> in facmp(), added tests and lo and behold, there was a bug! (bacmp(5,+inf)
> returned 1 but should return -1 ;)
Hah! It was all worth it :-)
> Wow ;)
Indeed.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
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
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 21-Oct-01 Paul Johnson tried to scribble about:
> I keep getting hit by things that think I am running Micros~1 stuff :-(
Those worms, again. *sigh*
> Looks like you have it now, but let me know if that's not the case.
Since I am constantly developi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 21-Oct-01 Paul Johnson tried to scribble about:
> I ran this last night, and supply the results here without comment save:
Thank you for your work! I looked at BigFloat.pm, noticed a untested line
in facmp(), added tests and lo and behold, there was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 21-Oct-01 Paul Johnson tried to scribble about:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 07:40:11PM +0200, Tels wrote:
>
>> Thank you for your work! I looked at BigFloat.pm, noticed a untested
>> line
>> in facmp(), added tests and lo and behold, there was a bug!
>>
14 matches
Mail list logo
