Raising the bar on Phobos unittest coverage

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-06-21 11:26, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:

> -cov=nnn tests aren't (AFAICS) implemented as part of make unittest, nor is
> plain -cov.

I thought that was the idea. Perhaps it's not finished yet.

> I think a minimum acceptable threshold is necessary but not sufficient -- say
> your minimum code coverage is 85%, it's still most likely unacceptable if your
> coverage drops (say) from 92% to 87%.

I would say that if the -cov=nnn flag works as I described you need to 
update the percent as soon as you increase the coverage. In the above 
case the flag should have said -cov=92 and not 85.

> Anyway, the main benefit I see in printing the percentages isn't for testing
> purposes (though it's handy) but in advertising the existence and usefulness of
> code coverage analysis, and giving developers a nudge as to where and what to
> work on :-)

I don't mind it :) It's better if it can be enforced.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg