Search Results

Search found 654 results on 27 pages for 'coverage'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 5/27 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How can I run Gcov over an installed Cocoa application?

    - by Joe
    I have a Cocoa application which uses an installer. I want to be able to run code coverage over the code (after it has been installed). This is not the usual unit-test scenario where a single binary will run a suite of tests. Rather, the tests in question will interact with the UI and the app back-end whilst it is running, so I ideally want to be able to start the application knowing that Gcov is profiling it and then run tests against it. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Including uncovered files in Devel::Cover reports

    - by Markus
    I have a project setup like this: bin/fizzbuzz-game.pl lib/FizzBuzz.pm test/TestFizzBuzz.pm test/TestFizzBuzz.t When I run coverage on this, using perl -MDevel::Cover=-db,/tmp/cover_db test/*.t ... I get the following output: ----------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ File stmt bran cond sub time total ----------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ lib/FizzBuzz.pm 100.0 100.0 n/a 100.0 1.4 100.0 test/TestFizzBuzz.pm 100.0 n/a n/a 100.0 97.9 100.0 test/TestFizzBuzz.t 100.0 n/a n/a 100.0 0.7 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 n/a 100.0 100.0 100.0 ----------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ That is: the totally-uncovered file bin/fizzbuzz-game.pl is not included in the results. How do I fix this?

    Read the article

  • New NCover 3.4.2 makes all my MSTest unit tests fail

    - by Steven
    Yesterday, I decided to install the newest NCover version (3.4.2). However, when I ran it on my existing .ncover configuration file, the NCover output suddenly reported that all my MSTest tests failed. Of course those tests succeed when ran within Visual Studio. Because of this, NCover isn't able to determine any coverage. Somehow the old configuration doesn't seem to work with the new version. Does anyone have any idea what the problem could be or how to solve it? Btw. Here is my ncover configuration. Project settings: Path to application to profile: c:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\Common7\IDE\MSTest.exe Arguments for the application to profile: /testcontainer:D:\dev\MyApp\MyApp.Services.Tests.Unit\bin\Debug\MyApp.Services.Tests.Unit.dll /testcontainer:D:\dev\MyApp\MyApp.WS.Tests.Unit\bin\Debug\MyApp.WS.Tests.Unit.dll Working folder: D:\dev\MyApp

    Read the article

  • An algorithm Problem

    - by Vignesh
    For coverage, I've a set of run time variables of from my program execution. It happens that I get it from a series of executions(Automated testing). ie. its a vector<vector<var,value>> I've a limited set of variables with expected values and generate combination s, that is I have vector<vector<var,value>(smaller than the execution vector)>. Now I need to compare and tell which of the combination I generated were exactly executed in one of the tests. My algo is O(n^4). Is there any way to bring it down. Something like set intersection. I'm using java, and vectors because of thread safety.

    Read the article

  • Django nose to run only project tests

    - by patroqueeet
    I added nose, django-nose, nose-exclude, coverage to my buildout.cfg and ran buildout. Furthermore I added the TEST_RUNNER and the NOSE_ARGS to my settings.py. In the last step I created a exclude_dirs.txt and included it into the NOSE_ARGS. That worked so far. Finally I ran bin/django testto run the tests of my project. I found out that every app inside INSTALLED_APP is run and that even parts of the django core models are run. How can I limit this to my project only without exernal packages?

    Read the article

  • Unit tests and Test Runner problems under .Net 4.0

    - by Brett Rigby
    Hi there, We're trying to migrate a .Net 3.5 solution into .Net 4.0, but are experiencing complications with the testing frameworks that can operate using an assembly that is built using version 4.0 of the .Net Framework. Previously, we used NUnit 2.4.3.0 and NCover 1.5.8.0 within our NAnt scripts, but NUnit 2.4.3.0 doesn't like .Net 4.0 projects. So, we upgraded to a newer version of the NUnit framework within the test project itself, but then found that NCover 1.5.8.0 doesn't support this version of NUnit. We get errors in the code saying words to the effect of the assembly was built using a newer version of the .Net Framework than is currently in use, as it's using .Net Framework 2.0 to run the tools. We then tried using Gallio's Icarus test runner GUI, but found that this and MbUnit only support up to version 3.5 of the .Net Frameword and the result is "the tests will be ignored". In terms of the coverage side of things (for reporting into CruiseControl.net), we have found that PartCover is a good candidate for substituting-out NCover, (as the newer version of NCover is quite dear, and PartCover is free), but this is a few steps down the line yet, as we can't get the test runners to work first!! Can any shed any light on a testnig framework that will run under .Net 4.0 in the same way as I've described above? If not, I fear we may have to revert back to using .Net 3.5 until the manufacturers of the tooling that we're currently using have a chance to upgrade to .Net 4.0. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • why the main method are not covered? urgent, please help me

    - by Mike.Huang
    main method: public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { if (args.length != EXPECTED_NUMBER_OF_ARGUMENTS) { System.err.println("Usage - java XFRCompiler ConfigXML PackageXML XFR"); } String configXML = args[0]; String packageXML = args[1]; String xfr = args[2]; AutoConfigCompiler compiler = new AutoConfigCompiler(); compiler.setConfigDocument(loadDocument(configXML)); compiler.setPackageInfoDoc(loadDocument(packageXML)); // compiler.setVisiblityDoc(loadDocument("VisibilityFilter.xml")); compiler.compileModel(xfr); } private static Document loadDocument(String fileName) throws Exception { TXDOMParser parser = (TXDOMParser) ParserFactory.makeParser(TXDOMParser.class.getName()); InputSource source = new InputSource(new FileInputStream(fileName)); parser.parse(source); return parser.getDocument(); } testcase: @Test public void testCompileModel() throws Exception { // construct parameters URL configFile = Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader().getResource("Ford_2008_Mustang_Config.xml"); URL packageFile = Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader().getResource("Ford_2008_Mustang_Package.xml"); File tmpFile = new File("Ford_2008_Mustang_tmp.xfr"); if(!tmpFile.exists()) { tmpFile.createNewFile(); } String[] args = new String[]{configFile.getPath(),packageFile.getPath(),tmpFile.getPath()}; try { // test main method XFRCompiler.main(args); } catch (Exception e) { assertTrue(true); } try { // test args length is less than 3 XFRCompiler.main(new String[]{"",""}); } catch (Exception e) { assertTrue(true); } tmpFile.delete(); } coverage outputs displayed as the lines from “String configXML = args[0];" in main method are not covered

    Read the article

  • Why is the main method not covered?

    - by Mike.Huang
    main method: public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { if (args.length != EXPECTED_NUMBER_OF_ARGUMENTS) { System.err.println("Usage - java XFRCompiler ConfigXML PackageXML XFR"); } String configXML = args[0]; String packageXML = args[1]; String xfr = args[2]; AutoConfigCompiler compiler = new AutoConfigCompiler(); compiler.setConfigDocument(loadDocument(configXML)); compiler.setPackageInfoDoc(loadDocument(packageXML)); // compiler.setVisiblityDoc(loadDocument("VisibilityFilter.xml")); compiler.compileModel(xfr); } private static Document loadDocument(String fileName) throws Exception { TXDOMParser parser = (TXDOMParser) ParserFactory.makeParser(TXDOMParser.class.getName()); InputSource source = new InputSource(new FileInputStream(fileName)); parser.parse(source); return parser.getDocument(); } testcase: @Test public void testCompileModel() throws Exception { // construct parameters URL configFile = Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader().getResource("Ford_2008_Mustang_Config.xml"); URL packageFile = Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader().getResource("Ford_2008_Mustang_Package.xml"); File tmpFile = new File("Ford_2008_Mustang_tmp.xfr"); if(!tmpFile.exists()) { tmpFile.createNewFile(); } String[] args = new String[]{configFile.getPath(),packageFile.getPath(),tmpFile.getPath()}; try { // test main method XFRCompiler.main(args); } catch (Exception e) { assertTrue(true); } try { // test args length is less than 3 XFRCompiler.main(new String[]{"",""}); } catch (Exception e) { assertTrue(true); } tmpFile.delete(); } Coverage outputs displayed as the lines from String configXML = args[0]; in main method are not covered.

    Read the article

  • Why does Module::Build's testcover gives me "use of uninitialized value" warnings?

    - by Kurt W. Leucht
    I'm kinda new to Module::Build, so maybe I did something wrong. Am I the only one who gets warnings when I change my dispatch from "test" to "testcover"? Is there a bug in Devel::Cover? Is there a bug in Module::Build? I probably just did something wrong. I'm using ActiveState Perl v5.10.0 with Module::Build version 0.31012 and Devel::Cover 0.64 and Eclipse 3.4.1 with EPIC 0.6.34 for my IDE. UPDATE: I upgraded to Module::Build 0.34 and the warnings are still output. *UPDATE: Looks like a bug in B::Deparse. Hope it gets fixed someday.* Here's my unit test build file: use strict; use warnings; use Module::Build; my $build = Module::Build->resume ( properties => { config_dir => '_build', }, ); $build->dispatch('test'); When I run this unit test build file, I get the following output: t\MyLib1.......ok t\MyLib2.......ok t\MyLib3.......ok All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=24, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.00 cusr + 0.00 csys = 0.00 CPU) But when I change the dispatch line to 'testcover' I get the following output which always includes a bunch of "use of uninitialized value in bitwise and" warning messages: Deleting database D:/Documents and Settings/<username>/My Documents/<SNIP>/cover_db t\MyLib1.......ok Use of uninitialized value in bitwise and (&) at D:/Perl/lib/B/Deparse.pm line 4252. Use of uninitialized value in bitwise and (&) at D:/Perl/lib/B/Deparse.pm line 4252. t\MyLib2.......ok Use of uninitialized value in bitwise and (&) at D:/Perl/lib/B/Deparse.pm line 4252. Use of uninitialized value in bitwise and (&) at D:/Perl/lib/B/Deparse.pm line 4252. t\MyLib3.......ok Use of uninitialized value in bitwise and (&) at D:/Perl/lib/B/Deparse.pm line 4252. Use of uninitialized value in bitwise and (&) at D:/Perl/lib/B/Deparse.pm line 4252. All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=24, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.00 cusr + 0.00 csys = 0.00 CPU) Reading database from D:/Documents and Settings/<username>/My Documents/<SNIP>/cover_db ---------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ File stmt bran cond sub pod time total ---------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ .../lib/ActivePerl/Config.pm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n/a 0.0 ...l/lib/ActiveState/Path.pm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 n/a 4.8 <SNIP> blib/lib/<SNIP>/MyLib2.pm 100.0 90.0 n/a 100.0 100.0 0.0 98.5 blib/lib/<SNIP>/MyLib3.pm 100.0 90.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.6 98.0 Total 14.4 6.7 3.8 18.3 20.0 100.0 11.6 ---------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ Writing HTML output to D:/Documents and Settings/<username>/My Documents/<SNIP>/cover_db/coverage.html ... done.

    Read the article

  • How can I run Devel::Cover under mod_perl2?

    - by codeholic
    Unfortunately, Devel::Cover does not yet work with threads. It doesn't work with prefork either. Being use'd in startup.pl, Devel::Cover issues Not a CODE reference. END failed--call queue aborted. perl 5.8.9, Apache 2.2.13. My OS is FreeBSD, if that matters. The same problem is reported for win32.

    Read the article

  • eclemma - how to ignore source

    - by hba
    Hi, I'm using junit/eclemma; it works great, except I'd like to instruct eclemma to ignore certain methods or classes. For example, how would i instruct eclemma to ignore getters/setters. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Conditions with common logic: question of style, readability, efficiency, ...

    - by cdonner
    I have conditional logic that requires pre-processing that is common to each of the conditions (instantiating objects, database lookups etc). I can think of 3 possible ways to do this, but each has a flaw: Option 1 if A prepare processing do A logic else if B prepare processing do B logic else if C prepare processing do C logic // else do nothing end The flaw with option 1 is that the expensive code is redundant. Option 2 prepare processing // not necessary unless A, B, or C if A do A logic else if B do B logic else if C do C logic // else do nothing end The flaw with option 2 is that the expensive code runs even when neither A, B or C is true Option 3 if (A, B, or C) prepare processing end if A do A logic else if B do B logic else if C do C logic end The flaw with option 3 is that the conditions for A, B, C are being evaluated twice. The evaluation is also costly. Now that I think about it, there is a variant of option 3 that I call option 4: Option 4 if (A, B, or C) prepare processing if A set D else if B set E else if C set F end end if D do A logic else if E do B logic else if F do C logic end While this does address the costly evaluations of A, B, and C, it makes the whole thing more ugly and I don't like it. How would you rank the options, and are there any others that I am not seeing?

    Read the article

  • Undefined symbols when attempting to use CoverStory with iPhone app: _vproc_transaction_end

    - by dbarker
    After following these steps to set up an iphone project with CoverStory, my build fails with two linker errors. Undefined symbols: "_vproc_transaction_end", referenced from: _gcov_exit in libgcov.a(_gcov.o) _vproc_transaction_end$non_lazy_ptr in libgcov.a(_gcov.o) (maybe you meant: _vproc_transaction_end$non_lazy_ptr) "_vproc_transaction_begin", referenced from: ___gcov_init in libgcov.a(_gcov.o) _vproc_transaction_begin$non_lazy_ptr in libgcov.a(_gcov.o) (maybe you meant: _vproc_transaction_begin$non_lazy_ptr) ld: symbol(s) not found collect2: ld returned 1 exit status The second error is similar to above, except for _vproc_transaction_begin. I'm using Xcode 3.2, GCC 4.2 on Snow Leopard. Any ideas what I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • What block is not being tested in my test method? (VS08 Test Framework)

    - by daft
    I have the following code: private void SetControlNumbers() { string controlString = ""; int numberLength = PersonNummer.Length; switch (numberLength) { case (10) : controlString = PersonNummer.Substring(6, 4); break; case (11) : controlString = PersonNummer.Substring(7, 4); break; case (12) : controlString = PersonNummer.Substring(8, 4); break; case (13) : controlString = PersonNummer.Substring(9, 4); break; } ControlNumbers = Convert.ToInt32(controlString); } Which is tested using the following test methods: [TestMethod()] public void SetControlNumbers_Length10() { string pNummer = "9999999999"; Personnummer target = new Personnummer(pNummer); Assert.AreEqual(9999, target.ControlNumbers); } [TestMethod()] public void SetControlNumbers_Length11() { string pNummer = "999999-9999"; Personnummer target = new Personnummer(pNummer); Assert.AreEqual(9999, target.ControlNumbers); } [TestMethod()] public void SetControlNumbers_Length12() { string pNummer = "199999999999"; Personnummer target = new Personnummer(pNummer); Assert.AreEqual(9999, target.ControlNumbers); } [TestMethod()] public void SetControlNumbers_Length13() { string pNummer = "1999999-9999"; Personnummer target = new Personnummer(pNummer); Assert.AreEqual(9999, target.ControlNumbers); } For some reason Visual Studio says that I have 1 block that is not tested despite showing all code in the method under test in blue (ie. the code is covered in my unit tests). Is this because of the fact that I don't have a default value defined in the switch? When the SetControlNumbers() method is called, the string on which it operates have already been validated and checked to see that it conforms to the specification and that the various Substring calls in the switch will generate a string containing 4 chars. I'm just curious as to why it says there is 1 untested block. I'm no unit test guru at all, so I'd love some feedback on this. Also, how can I improve on the conversion after the switch to make it safer other than adding a try-catch block and check for FormatExceptions and OverflowExceptions?

    Read the article

  • NCover couldn't create a coverage report. 0 Passed, 0 Failed, 0 Skipped

    - by pavel.tuzov
    Hi, I am using Visual Studio 2008 Professional with TestDriven.NET 2.14.2190, Windows XP (x86). When i right click on my unit tests project, test with - Coverage, I obtain the following output: NCover couldn't create a coverage report. and the result: 0 Passed, 0 Failed, 0 Skipped I have no other versions of NCover installed, just the VS and TestDriven .NET The actual testing is performed as expected - all tests successfully pass (so, there's nothing wrong with my class) Does anyone know what could be the problem?

    Read the article

  • Testing Workflows &ndash; Test-After

    - by Timothy Klenke
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TimothyK/archive/2014/05/30/testing-workflows-ndash-test-after.aspxIn this post I’m going to outline a few common methods that can be used to increase the coverage of of your test suite.  This won’t be yet another post on why you should be doing testing; there are plenty of those types of posts already out there.  Assuming you know you should be testing, then comes the problem of how do I actual fit that into my day job.  When the opportunity to automate testing comes do you take it, or do you even recognize it? There are a lot of ways (workflows) to go about creating automated tests, just like there are many workflows to writing a program.  When writing a program you can do it from a top-down approach where you write the main skeleton of the algorithm and call out to dummy stub functions, or a bottom-up approach where the low level functionality is fully implement before it is quickly wired together at the end.  Both approaches are perfectly valid under certain contexts. Each approach you are skilled at applying is another tool in your tool belt.  The more vectors of attack you have on a problem – the better.  So here is a short, incomplete list of some of the workflows that can be applied to increasing the amount of automation in your testing and level of quality in general.  Think of each workflow as an opportunity that is available for you to take. Test workflows basically fall into 2 categories:  test first or test after.  Test first is the best approach.  However, this post isn’t about the one and only best approach.  I want to focus more on the lesser known, less ideal approaches that still provide an opportunity for adding tests.  In this post I’ll enumerate some test-after workflows.  In my next post I’ll cover test-first. Bug Reporting When someone calls you up or forwards you a email with a vague description of a bug its usually standard procedure to create or verify a reproduction plan for the bug via manual testing and log that in a bug tracking system.  This can be problematic.  Often reproduction plans when written down might skip a step that seemed obvious to the tester at the time or they might be missing some crucial environment setting. Instead of data entry into a bug tracking system, try opening up the test project and adding a failing unit test to prove the bug.  The test project guarantees that all aspects of the environment are setup properly and no steps are missing.  The language in the test project is much more precise than the English that goes into a bug tracking system. This workflow can easily be extended for Enhancement Requests as well as Bug Reporting. Exploratory Testing Exploratory testing comes in when you aren’t sure how the system will behave in a new scenario.  The scenario wasn’t planned for in the initial system requirements and there isn’t an existing test for it.  By definition the system behaviour is “undefined”. So write a new unit test to define that behaviour.  Add assertions to the tests to confirm your assumptions.  The new test becomes part of the living system specification that is kept up to date with the test suite. Examples This workflow is especially good when developing APIs.  When you are finally done your production API then comes the job of writing documentation on how to consume the API.  Good documentation will also include code examples.  Don’t let these code examples merely exist in some accompanying manual; implement them in a test suite. Example tests and documentation do not have to be created after the production API is complete.  It is best to write the example code (tests) as you go just before the production code. Smoke Tests Every system has a typical use case.  This represents the basic, core functionality of the system.  If this fails after an upgrade the end users will be hosed and they will be scratching their heads as to how it could be possible that an update got released with this core functionality broken. The tests for this core functionality are referred to as “smoke tests”.  It is a good idea to have them automated and run with each build in order to avoid extreme embarrassment and angry customers. Coverage Analysis Code coverage analysis is a tool that reports how much of the production code base is exercised by the test suite.  In Visual Studio this can be found under the Test main menu item. The tool will report a total number for the code coverage, which can be anywhere between 0 and 100%.  Coverage Analysis shouldn’t be used strictly for numbers reporting.  Companies shouldn’t set minimum coverage targets that mandate that all projects must have at least 80% or 100% test coverage.  These arbitrary requirements just invite gaming of the coverage analysis, which makes the numbers useless. The analysis tool will break down the coverage by the various classes and methods in projects.  Instead of focusing on the total number, drill down into this view and see which classes have high or low coverage.  It you are surprised by a low number on a class this is an opportunity to add tests. When drilling through the classes there will be generally two types of reaction to a surprising low test coverage number.  The first reaction type is a recognition that there is low hanging fruit to be picked.  There may be some classes or methods that aren’t being tested, which could easy be.  The other reaction type is “OMG”.  This were you find a critical piece of code that isn’t under test.  In both cases, go and add the missing tests. Test Refactoring The general theme of this post up to this point has been how to add more and more tests to a test suite.  I’ll step back from that a bit and remind that every line of code is a liability.  Each line of code has to be read and maintained, which costs money.  This is true regardless whether the code is production code or test code. Remember that the primary goal of the test suite is that it be easy to read so that people can easily determine the specifications of the system.  Make sure that adding more and more tests doesn’t interfere with this primary goal. Perform code reviews on the test suite as often as on production code.  Hold the test code up to the same high readability standards as the production code.  If the tests are hard to read then change them.  Look to remove duplication.  Duplicate setup code between two or more test methods that can be moved to a shared function.  Entire test methods can be removed if it is found that the scenario it tests is covered by other tests.  Its OK to delete a test that isn’t pulling its own weight anymore. Remember to only start refactoring when all the test are green.  Don’t refactor the tests and the production code at the same time.  An automated test suite can be thought of as a double entry book keeping system.  The unchanging, passing production code serves as the tests for the test suite while refactoring the tests. As with all refactoring, it is best to fit this into your regular work rather than asking for time later to get it done.  Fit this into the standard red-green-refactor cycle.  The refactor step no only applies to production code but also the tests, but not at the same time.  Perhaps the cycle should be called red-green-refactor production-refactor tests (not quite as catchy).   That about covers most of the test-after workflows I can think of.  In my next post I’ll get into test-first workflows.

    Read the article

  • No More NCrunch For Me

    - by Steve Wilkes
    When I opened up Visual Studio this morning, I was greeted with this little popup: NCrunch is a Visual Studio add-in which runs your tests while you work so you know if and when you've broken anything, as well as providing coverage indicators in the IDE and coverage metrics on demand. It recently went commercial (which I thought was fair enough), and time is running out for the free version I've been using for the last couple of months. From my experiences using NCrunch I'm going to let it expire, and go about my business without it. Here's why. Before I start, let me say that I think NCrunch is a good product, which is to say it's had a positive impact on my programming. I've used it to help test-drive a library I'm making right from the start of the project, and especially at the beginning it was very useful to have it run all my tests whenever I made a change. The first problem is that while that was cool to start with, it’s recently become a bit of a chore. Problems Running Tests NCrunch has two 'engine modes' in which it can run tests for you - it can run all your tests when you make a change, or it can figure out which tests were impacted and only run those. Unfortunately, it became clear pretty early on that that second option (which is marked as 'experimental') wasn't really working for me, so I had to have it run everything. With a smallish number of tests and while I was adding new features that was great, but I've now got 445 tests (still not exactly loads) and am more in a 'clean and tidy' mode where I know that a change I'm making will probably only affect a particular subset of the tests. With that in mind it's a bit of a drag sitting there after I make a change and having to wait for NCrunch to run everything. I could disable it and manually run the tests I know are impacted, but then what's the point of having NCrunch? If the 'impacted only' engine mode worked well this problem would go away, but that's not what I found. Secondly, what's wrong with this picture? I've got 445 tests, and NCrunch has queued 455 tests to run. So it's queued duplicate tests - in this quickly-screenshotted case 10, but I've seen the total queue get up over 600. If I'm already itchy waiting for it to run all my tests against a change I know only affects a few, I'm even itchier waiting for it to run a lot of them twice. Problems With Code Coverage NCrunch marks each line of code with a dot to say if it's covered by tests - a black dot says the line isn't covered, a red dot says it's covered but at least one of the covering tests is failing, and a green dot means all the covering tests pass. It also calculates coverage statistics for you. Unfortunately, there's a couple of flaws in the coverage. Firstly, it doesn't support ExcludeFromCodeCoverage attributes. This feature has been requested and I expect will be included in a later release, but right now it doesn't. So this: ...is counted as a non-covered line, and drags your coverage statistics down. Hmph. As well as that, coverage of certain types of code is missed. This: ...is definitely covered. I am 100% absolutely certain it is, by several tests. NCrunch doesn't pick it up, down go my coverage statistics. I've had NCrunch find genuinely uncovered code which I've been able to remove, and that's great, but what's the coverage percentage on this project? Umm... I don't know. Conclusion None of these are major, tool-crippling problems, and I expect NCrunch to get much better in future releases. The current version has some great features, like this: ...that's a line of code with a failing test covering it, and NCrunch can run that failing test and take me to that line exquisitely easily. That's awesome! I'd happily pay for a tool that can do that. But here's the thing: NCrunch (currently) costs $159 (about £100) for a personal licence and $289 (about £180) for a commercial one. I'm not sure which one I'd need as my project is a personal one which I'm intending to open-source, but I'm a professional, self-employed developer, but in any case - that seems like a lot of money for an imperfect tool. If it did everything it's advertised to do more or less perfectly I'd consider it, but it doesn't. So no more NCrunch for me.

    Read the article

  • Code coverage with phpunit; can't get to one place.

    - by HA17
    In the xdebug code coverage, it shows the line "return false;" (below "!$r") as not covered by my tests. But, the $sql is basically hard-coded. How do I get coverage on that? Do I overwrite "$table" somehow? Or kill the database server for this part of the test? I guess this is probably telling me I'm not writing my model very well, right? Because I can't test it well. How can I write this better? Since this one line is not covered, the whole method is not covered and the reports are off. I'm fairly new to phpunit. Thanks. public function retrieve_all() { $table = $this->tablename(); $sql = "SELECT t.* FROM `{$table}` as t"; $r = dbq ( $sql, 'read' ); if(!$r) { return false; } $ret = array (); while ( $rs = mysql_fetch_array ( $r, MYSQL_ASSOC ) ) { $ret[] = $rs; } return $ret; }

    Read the article

  • How can I get 100% test coverage in a Perl module that uses DBI?

    - by BrianH
    I am a bit new to the Devel::Cover module, but have found it very useful in making sure I am not missing tests. A problem I am running into is understanding the report from Devel::Cover. I've looked at the documentation, but can't figure out what I need to test to get 100% coverage. Here is the output from the cover report: line err stmt bran cond sub pod time code ... 36 sub connect_database { 37 3 3 1 1126 my $self = shift; 38 3 100 24 if ( !$self->{dsn} ) { 39 1 7 croak 'dsn not supplied - cannot connect'; 40 } 41 *** 2 33 21 $self->{dbh} = DBI->connect( $self->{dsn}, q{}, q{} ) 42 || croak "$DBI::errstr"; 43 1 11 return $self; 44 } ... line err % l !l&&r !l&&!r expr ----- --- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- 41 *** 33 1 0 0 'DBI'->connect($$self{'dsn'}, '', '') || croak("$DBI::errstr") And here is and example of my code that tests this specific line: my $database = MyModule::Database->new( { dsn => 'Invalid DSN' }); throws_ok( sub { $database->connect_database() }, qr/Can't connect to data source/, 'Test connection exception (invalid dsn)' ); This test passes - the connect does throw an error and fulfills my "throws_ok" test. I do have some tests that test for a successful connection, which is why I think I have 33% coverage, but if I'm reading it correctly, cover thinks I am not testing the "|| croak" part of the statement. I thought I was, with the "throws_ok" test, but obviously I am missing something. Does anyone have advice on how I can test my DBI-connect line successfully? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to get Code Coverage working on a VS 2010 project?

    - by Kimoz
    When I turn on Code Coverage in my test settings, on a project that references the Unity DI container I get the following error: Cannot initialize the ASP.NET project '{Project Name}'. The event log specifies the following reason: Could not load file or assembly 'Microsoft.Practices.Unity, Version=2.0.414.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35' or one of its dependencies. Strong name signature could not be verified. How do I get around this issue? I am running Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate on a Windows 7 X64 machine.

    Read the article

  • How do I enable code coverage in Visual Studio 2005?

    - by CandlesOfThe
    I have looked at this question; http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2872158/ and the F1 page, but that doesn't help me much. I have set the profiling on and rebuilt, but I can't find the 'Data and Diagnostics' page, or see anything which resembles a coverage data file in the project folder. What I am trying to do get an equivalent to 'gcov' on a Linux platform, get a chart of how much code is being missed by the test suite. I'm using Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition and UnitTest++ as the test framework. Any help would be most welcome.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >