Test coverage is 18.4%

Max Kanat-Alexander mkanat at bugzilla.org
Sat Feb 13 20:53:19 UTC 2010

On 02/13/2010 11:14 AM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> Personally I don't think adding strictly speaking unit tests to already
> existing code makes a lot of sense. At least not in the case of a full
> blown application.
> I'd rather have more Selenium tests or tests that execute the individual
> .cgi scripts on the command line.
> I never tried to measure coverage of Selenium tests but maybe that
> can be done as well.

	Yeah, I think it might make more sense to focus on the Selenium tests
for now, because we can guarantee that they can actually test the full

	I do actually want unit tests, though. I think it's the lack of
existing unit tests that causes us to not write new ones for stuff that
we check in.

> Then those tests can be included in the t/ directory as well and executed
> on condition.

	Yeah, I was thinking that as well, although at the moment they require
basically an empty database in order to run.

> ps. In companies I would be happy with 30-40% coverage, it is usually
> way lower but on CPAN modules I regularly see 70-80% see a few of
> them here: http://szabgab.com/coverage/

	Yeah, I still like to try for 100% coverage, though. I think that my
current CPAN modules come pretty close, actually, although I just
checked one of them after this discussion and I noticed there are a few
extra code paths I need to test. :-)

Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Perl Services. Everything Else, too.

More information about the developers mailing list