Hello,
Juho Snellman recently[1] posted a very useful SBCL-specific coverage tool. I did this for CFFI to test the coverage of cffi-tests. The report can be found here:
http://common-lisp.net/~loliveira/tmp/cffi-tests-coverage/
The results seem pretty good to me: 80.5% code coverage. It does reveal some missed spots so if someone feels like writing some tests, look at this report for picking where to start. :-)
A significant percentage of these missed spots are a result of compiler macros (or type expansions) kicking in or error branches not being exercised.
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.steel-bank.devel/8721
Hi,
Juho Snellman recently[1] posted a very useful SBCL-specific coverage tool. http://common-lisp.net/~loliveira/tmp/cffi-tests-coverage/ The results seem pretty good to me: 80.5% code coverage.
This is inded an excellent result given that presumably no tool was ever used before as a guide to achieve a good coverage, i.e. tests were written on an ad-hoc basis. Jumping from 0 to 80 at the first attempt is excellent.
You don't say what these percentages express, so it's pointless to compare that number to other numbers reported in the software reliability community.
Congratulations, Jörg Höhle.
-
Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril -
Luis Oliveira