True, but there's two sides of this.
When needing the explicit annotation, it will keep out stuff that shouldn't be included (I agree on the wfRunHooks example).
However, depending on how it's implemented, it might also remove the very essence of line coverage. We wouldn't want to disable automatic coverage entirely (e.g. @cover Foo to mark Foo as 100% covered). It's still useful to have it provide the line-by-line coverage of an individual method to see what hasn't been covered yet.
Anyway, it looks like it's implemented with this in mind. It's not a boolean flag to disable the covering detection. It's more like a filter to to keep everything else out. Great :)
-- Krinkle
On 2013-10-18, at 18:38, Erik Bernhardson ebernhardson@wikimedia.org wrote:
different definitions of test ;-) code touched seems like a much less useful metric than code specifically tested, but i could be convinced otherwise.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <bjorsch@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Erik Bernhardson ebernhardson@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
bjorsch@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr
wrote:
In June I enforced a PHPUnit feature which force us to mention which
MediaWiki function is covered by a test method [FORCE COVER].
Why is this desirable?
In my experience this is desirable in order to only mark the particular code you are testing as covered. So for example if you are testing database functions, you don't want it to mark wfRunHooks and friends as "covered" when it just happened to be called but wasn't specifically
tested.
On the other hand, you *did* test part of wfRunHooks, even if indirectly.
-- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l