Right. I have looked at both t/ and tests/ and agree that they could use some work. But when starting on a trip its best to walk in one direction to start. Otherwise you end up going around in circles.
--- On Thu, 7/30/09, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
From: Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code coverage statistics To: "Wikimedia developers" wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 8:18 AM On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:53 AM, dan nessettdnessett@yahoo.com wrote:
True. However, knowing the coverage of parserTests and
knowing which code isn't even being visited by it is the first step in understanding where the holes are in testing. Code coverage is a primitive metric. But, it's a place to start.
--- On Thu, 7/30/09, Victor Vasiliev vasilvv@gmail.com
wrote:
From: Victor Vasiliev vasilvv@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] parserTests code
coverage statistics
To: "Wikimedia developers" wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 1:28 AM dan nessett wrote:
I decided to investigate how well
parserTests
exercises the MW code. So, I threw together a
couple of
MacGyver tools that use xdebug's code coverage
capability
and analyzed the results. The results are very,
very
preliminary, but I thought I would get them out so
others
can look them over. In the next couple of days I
hope to
post more detailed results and the tools
themselves on the
Mediawiki wiki. (If someone could tell me the
appropriate
page to use that would be useful. Otherwise, I
will just
create a page in my own namespace).
The statistics (again very preliminary) are:
Number of files exercised: 141 Number of
lines
in those files: 85606
Lines covered: 59489 Lines not covered:
26117 Percentage covered: 0.694916244188
So, parserTests is getting (at best) about
70% code
coverage. This is better than I expected, but
still it means
parserTests does not test 26117 lines of code.
What I mean
by "at best" is xdebug just notes whether a line
of code is
visited. It doesn't do any logic analysis on which
branches
are taken. Furthermore, parserTests may not visit
some files
that are critical to the operation of the MW
software.
Obviously, xdebug can only gather statistics on
visited
files.
I want to emphasize that there may be errors
in these
results due to bad assumptions on my part or bad
coding.
However, it is a place to start.
Well, they are *parser* tests, they are not
intended to
cover Special:Version or something else.
--vvv
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
For more generic unit tests, check out the stuff in /t/ and /tests/ Those could probably use improvement.
-Chad
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l