| Thread overview | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
October 04, 2013 std.d.lexer - discussion (not the voting thread) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
When running: dmd std/d/lexer -cov -main -unittest what is the percent coverage? | ||||
October 04, 2013 Re: std.d.lexer - discussion (not the voting thread) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | On Friday, 4 October 2013 at 18:03:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> When running:
>
> dmd std/d/lexer -cov -main -unittest
>
> what is the percent coverage?
"lexer.d is 86% covered"
| |||
October 04, 2013 Re: std.d.lexer - discussion (not the voting thread) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Brian Schott | On 2013-10-04 20:10, Brian Schott wrote: > "lexer.d is 86% covered" Do we have a minimum coverage level? -- /Jacob Carlborg | |||
October 04, 2013 Re: std.d.lexer - discussion (not the voting thread) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jacob Carlborg | On Friday, 4 October 2013 at 18:32:59 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Do we have a minimum coverage level?
If we do, nobody has written it down.
| |||
October 04, 2013 Re: std.d.lexer - discussion (not the voting thread) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jacob Carlborg | On 10/4/2013 11:32 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-10-04 20:10, Brian Schott wrote:
>
>> "lexer.d is 86% covered"
>
> Do we have a minimum coverage level?
No, but any "low hanging fruit" uncovered lines need to get test cases added, i.e. there needs to be some sort of justification for lines not covered.
In general, I'd say we need to be shooting for >= 95%.
If you look at phobos' win32.mak, which lists coverage percentages for the various phobos modules, a lot of phobos modules are very inadequately covered.
| |||
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation
Permalink
Reply