Code coverage
joshscholar at nightstudies.net
joshscholar at nightstudies.net
Wed Jan 18 00:16:00 UTC 2006
Well that's where that class reference documentation should come in.
You shouldn't have to prove what methods are needed by what subsystems, that
should be in the documentation.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Garnock-Jones" <tonyg at lshift.net>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: Code coverage
> Craig Latta wrote:
> > > Sounds like a risky idea :-)
> >
> > Nah, it's been working fine for three years now. The fact that it
> > worked for the first three minutes was enough to convince me. :)
>
> I just mean determining the complete behaviour of a piece of code from
> the methods it touches during a particular test run. I guess it's the
> same objection raised when test suites are compared to static type
> systems: one proves correctness, one proves not-incorrectness... :-)
>
> Tony
>
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|