To follow up on Paul's answer, I would go as far as to say that I test my
code in order to feel comfortable that it actually does what it should do.
Thus, I can very well live with 90% coverage if I know what the missing 10%
are rather than testing for the sake of making a good impression with a
100% report.
- Reto
On Feb 12, 2014 9:37 PM, "Paul Benedict" <pbened...@apache.org> wrote:
> IIRC, there should be an option in Emma/Cobertura that allows you to
> exclude coverage on certain classes. So if you can exclude your log4j
> classes (you don't really want to test your logging, do you?), then you
> should be able to raise your percentage.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Benoît Berthonneau
> <ben...@berthonneau.com>wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> >
> > I need your opinion/way to tackle the following problem:
> >
> > In many projects we use a Logger (doesn't matter which implementation).
> It
> > is often recommend to test if the debug level is activated before
> logging a
> > debug trace like the following:
> >
> > if (logger.isDebugEnabled()) {
> >
> > logger.debug("blah " + i + " in the loop that contains " + max);
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> > Now when you run unit tests on this kind of code you need to make a
> choice:
> > run tests with INFO level or run tests with ALL traces activated. I
> choose
> > the second option in order to:
> >
> > * Check that debug traces doesn't throw unwanted exception (like
> > NPE)
> >
> > * Have a better code coverage in term of covered lines
> >
> >
> >
> > But in term of branches coverage we could never have a 100% :(
> >
> >
> >
> > To me the only way to cover this is to run the tests suite 2 times: one
> > with
> > INFO traces configured, and another one with ALL traces activated.
> >
> > Did you face this issue and how did you solve it ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Benoît.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
