Re: Unit test coverage

From: Mike Kienenberger (mkienen..laska.net)
Date: Sat May 07 2005 - 15:21:26 EDT

  • Next message: Holger Hoffstätte: "Re: Updating dependent libs"

    Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
    > This certainly looks interesting. As I personally never used such
    > tools, I am in no position to comment on their usefulness and on the
    > various alternatives. Cayenne test suite deviates from the classic unit
    > test approach as it tries to make assertions about external libraries
    > and systems (such as different JDBC drivers and DBs). I wonder how this
    > fits into the picture?

    Emma is basically a reporting tool on your unit test writing.

    You replace your junit or java (ant or commandline) tasks with an emma task
    instead, and it generates a report that tells you which lines of code get
    executed during that run.

    By running the full junit test suite, you can see exactly what lines of code
    were never triggered by your unit tests.

    It fits in really easily and doesn't introduce any dependencies on anything
    else.

    Here's a quick painless look at a sample (ran against Velocity 1.4) of what
    it produces.

    http://emma.sourceforge.net/samples.html

    With emma, you can either have it "recompile" your code to add
    instrumentation, or you can have it done on the fly, which is how I've
    always done it.

    -Mike



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat May 07 2005 - 15:19:35 EDT