5 messages in com.canoo.lists.webtestRe: [Webtest] 100% test coverage| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Dierk Koenig | 29 Jul 2003 08:40 | |
| Siegfried Göschl | 29 Jul 2003 09:20 | |
| Siegfried Göschl | 29 Jul 2003 09:23 | |
| Dierk Koenig | 30 Jul 2003 02:46 | |
| Dierk Koenig | 30 Jul 2003 02:55 |
| Subject: | Re: [Webtest] 100% test coverage![]() |
|---|---|
| From: | Siegfried Göschl (sieg...@it20one.at) |
| Date: | 07/29/2003 09:20:17 AM |
| List: | com.canoo.lists.webtest |
Hi Mittie,
quite frankly this is the one and only non-trivial application with 100% code coverage I've seen!!
What about sending a notification also to TheCortex ... might get some more page hits and recommendations (and not only for Webtest)
Cheers
Sigi
On 29 Jul 2003 at 17:40, Dierk Koenig wrote:
Hiall,
I'm happy to announce that Canoo WebTest is now covered 100% by its selftests. You can explore this under http://webtest.canoo.com/webtest/clover/index.html
The coverage is achieved by a combination of unit tests and functional selftests. No manual test is involved.
There are a few classes that were excluded from the statistics. These are classes that I do not expect to be covered 100%: - The selftest dummy webapp is very likely also covered 100% but I haven't found an easy way to sneak in the report. - The httpunit package is only a playground without any functional purpose. - The security package contains wrappers around the JDK JSSE implementation. I just didn't take the challenge to test this, yet. Any help is appreciated. - The "Throw" class in the "self" package is a weird thing. It encapsulates the testing of exception handling. Testing its error scenarios is fairly complicated as would involve tweaking JUnit. - Append.java should actually be removed from WebTest as it does not belong there.(Tool-Task for testing XSLT with WebTest) - AllTests to allow uncovered points of starting TestSuite execution.
I deliberately included the JUnit test classes. That helped me finding tests that were not included in any suite and test-methods that re-named in order to suppress their execution (like "testMe()" to "_testMe()").
Overall, the exercise took some time but was not too complicated. Seeing the green bar growing was a good motivation. During the exercise, it appeared to me that untested code is very likely to be duplicated or even multiplied. Especially centralizing the error handling improved both, coverage and code appearance. Re-visiting the code for coverage purposes certainly improved the codebase.
Finally, I'd like to emphasize that 100% test coverage has nothing to with "code complete" and certainly not "error-free".
cheers Mittie
******************************************* Dierk Koenig Canoo Engineering AG Kirschgartenstrasse 7 CH-4051 Basel Tel +41 61 228 9444 Fax +41 61 228 9449 mailto:dier...@canoo.com http://www.canoo.com
ULC - Grant your Servlets a Swing Look&Feel http://www.canoo.com/ulc *******************************************
_______________________________________________ WebTest mailing list WebT...@lists.canoo.com http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest
Siegfried Goeschl CTO ================================= IT20one GmbH mail: sieg...@it20one.at phone: +43-1-9900046 fax: +43-1-52 37 888 www.it20one.at




