On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Philipp Riemer <ruderphil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As far as I learned in my Softw. Eng. courses, the main intent of this > type of code coverage is _not_ to show which parts are under test but > primarily to point out which parts are not tested at all so far. > Yes, of course.
> > And as one can (now fortunately) see there are still quite some lines > of code that are not touched during the tests... But now we all have a > much better overview what parts are exactly missing tests -- which at > least from my perspective is much better than just guessing and gut > feeling! Thank you very much for all your great work so far, John! > Im still not convinced 'my' coverage report shows this *exactly*. > > Of course, in future, every bug should get a unit test (at best even > before starting to fix it) so that regressions are easier get caught > ;-) > In the ideal world, yes, of course. ;) > In addition, it would be also good, to have two reports: (1) with only > the unit test coverage and (2) one where all test, including > integration tests etc., were executed. Huh ? what ? Regards, John Smith. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
