Raising the bar on Phobos unittest coverage

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Monday, March 18, 2013 17:34:12 Martin Nowak wrote:
> On 03/18/2013 02:00 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> > From now on, I'd like such unittest coverage (and justification for low
> > 
> > coverage) to be part of the minimum standard for all new phobos modules.
> 
> Great.
> 
> > $(DMD) -cov=83 -unittest -main -run std\file.d
> 
> Can someone look into std.file's unittests. They use 60% (32s/50s) of
> the unittest RUNtime on my machine.

My first guess would be that you're running a different OS from Walter and that 
OS-specific code counts as not being run when you run it on a different OS. If 
that's the case, std.file is doomed to have lower code coverage because of the 
larger-than-average percentage of it which is OS-specific. The coverage should 
still be looked into and improved where possible, but Linux code is clearly 
never going to run on Windows or vice versa.

- Jonathan M Davis