[rspec-users] Something like rcov but more explicit?
port001 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 07:10:04 EDT 2007
On 18/06/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Ian Leitch <port001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey list,
> > Does anything exist that can show me which lines are explicitly tested?
> > is great, but it doesn't really give a sense of _actual_ coverage,
> > there is no guarantee that functions executed were in fact called as the
> > result of a line being tested.
> Why do you care whether a line was executed directly (spec->code) or
> indirectly (spec->code->code->code)?
Just because a spec executed a function coincidentally and it generates some
kind of error (most likely semantic), there is no guarantee that the code
that made the call will also trip up. Therefore, rcov doesn't really tell me
to what extent my code base is explicitly tested.
> I know nothing of the rspec internals, but would a simple list of executed
> > lines be a relatively simple feature to add?
> That would be hard I think. Feel free to investigate it. I would
> rather recommend you use RSpec's --heckle switch if you want to know
> how good your examples are. Coverage is overrated.
> See http://seattlerb.rubyforge.org/heckle/ for more info.
Thanks, I'll give Heckle a look.
> > Cheers
> > Ian
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rspec-users