Liberty Eiffel - Tasks: task #12783, coverage
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
task #12783: coverage
Submitter: | Cyril Adrian <cadrian> | ||
Submitted: | Sat 24 Aug 2013 10:52:45 AM UTC | ||
Should Start On: | Fri 23 Aug 2013 10:00:00 PM UTC | Should be Finished on: | Fri 23 Aug 2013 10:00:00 PM UTC |
Category: | SmartEiffel | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | None | Percent Complete: | 0% |
Assigned to: | None | Open/Closed: | Open |
Fixed Release: | None | Planned Release: | None |
Effort: | 0.00 |
Mon 26 Aug 2013 05:00:20 PM UTC, comment #5: |
Raphael Mack <ramack>![]() |
Mon 26 Aug 2013 02:43:28 PM UTC, comment #4: OK, after thinking about it I agree with you. We will need to work a bit to distinguish normal statements to those called in a contract checking context (I think it is quite feasible).
|
Cyril Adrian <cadrian>![]() |
Sun 25 Aug 2013 12:44:01 PM UTC, comment #3: What do you think is interesting at the question whether a statement is covered in a contract? For me a use of a statement in a contract is just for the description/definition and validation of another feature. I think there are two aspects in covering a statement in a test: 1. it is covered, because the functionality around the statement is tested 2. it is covered, because it was necessary to setup the test case i. e. just covered "accidental". For the measure "coverage" I consider mainly the first interesting, while statements executed during contract checking contribute to the second class.
|
Raphael Mack <ramack>![]() |
Sun 25 Aug 2013 12:10:53 PM UTC, comment #2: OTOH, contract coverage may be an interesting measure too.
|
Cyril Adrian <cadrian>![]() |
Sat 24 Aug 2013 11:28:41 AM UTC, comment #1: Very good idea! We should think about the question whether a "statement" should be considered as covered in case it is covered only during contract checking. I consider the coverage without contract checking much more interesting. - Maybe, this could be reached by just selecting the right compilation mode...
|
Raphael Mack <ramack>![]() |
Sat 24 Aug 2013 10:52:45 AM UTC, original submission:
Enhance c2c, eiffeltest, pretty, and ET with a code coverage option.
|
Cyril Adrian <cadrian>![]() |
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
yes, you are right. C0 and C1 are included in MC/DC, so it may be enough to do analysis in the reports. Actually MC/DC is a hard goal, which may be "too much" for some project.