On Sunday, September 25, 2011 04:48:56 Andrej Mitrovic wrote: > On 9/25/11, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sunday, September 25, 2011 04:16:02 Andrej Mitrovic wrote: > >> Maybe it's best to keep unittest code really simple. > > > > That has always been my take on it. Sometimes, you're forced to make it > > more complicated, but if your unit tests are complicated, then there's > > a higher risk of bugs in them, which makes it more likely that they > > won't catch bugs in > > your code. It's bad enough having to debug the real code. I don't want > > to > > have > > to debug my unit tests as well. I definitely think that unit tests > > should > > almost always be dead-brain simple. > > > > - Jonathan M Davis > > Yeah. I would however like to know how much code-coverage I have in my > unittests. I don't know if this is implementable in the compiler, but > maybe a tool could figure this out. I think some C++ or Pascal > unittest facilities actually had something like that and could give > you a rough percentage of how much code is unittested.
-cov - Jonathan M Davis
