Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #8512
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: c++ compiler |
| Date | 2011-08-07 08:33 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9a5mpiFfkpU2@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (11 earlier) <j1i5nt$cbd$1@news.albasani.net> <9a3qgeFk3bU1@mid.individual.net> <4e3cfe4b$0$30706$5fc3050@news.tiscali.nl> <9a4gl1FfkpU1@mid.individual.net> <4e3d43cf$0$30711$5fc3050@news.tiscali.nl> |
On 08/ 7/11 01:38 AM, Dombo wrote: > Op 06-Aug-11 11:42, Ian Collins schreef: >>> >>> Unit tests never are. Even when the code coverage is 100% there is still >>> no guarantee that you have covered all possible execution flows. >> >> There should be if you wrote the tests first. > > If you believe that than those tests give you a false sense of security. Hence my use of "should". One of these days I will write the perfect set of tests. Until then I still end up resorting to a debugger from time to time. I still consider this to be a failure in my process. > If you write the test first (as I do) you still have no guarantee it > covers every possible scenario (even when the code coverage is 100%). > Usually code fails on scenarios that weren't anticipated, rather than > the scenario's that were anticipated (and tested). As long as tests (and > specifications for that matter) are created by humans chances are that > they are flawed as well. Very true. Just make sure to add a test to show the new scenario fails before fixing it. -- Ian Collins
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
c++ compiler krishnakanth <kmanivan82@gmail.com> - 2011-08-03 13:34 -0700
Re: c++ compiler Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-08-03 17:11 -0400
Re: c++ compiler "Waldek M." <wm@localhost.localdomain> - 2011-08-04 21:40 +0200
Re: c++ compiler BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-04 15:06 -0700
Re: c++ compiler Qi <no@no.no> - 2011-08-05 10:14 +0800
Re: c++ compiler Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-08-05 15:02 +0900
Re: c++ compiler BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-05 02:11 -0700
Re: c++ compiler Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-08-05 18:41 +0900
Re: c++ compiler Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-08-05 07:58 -0400
Re: c++ compiler "Waldek M." <wm@localhost.localdomain> - 2011-08-05 21:30 +0200
Re: c++ compiler Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-06 09:53 +1200
Re: c++ compiler BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-05 15:10 -0700
Re: c++ compiler Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-06 10:20 +1200
Re: c++ compiler BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-05 18:30 -0700
Re: c++ compiler Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-06 15:25 +1200
Re: c++ compiler Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-08-06 10:42 +0200
Re: c++ compiler Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-06 21:42 +1200
Re: c++ compiler Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-08-06 15:38 +0200
Re: c++ compiler BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-06 11:58 -0700
Re: c++ compiler yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-08-09 13:28 +0000
Re: c++ compiler Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-07 08:33 +1200
Re: c++ compiler BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-05 12:34 -0700
Re: c++ compiler "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-08-05 15:13 -0600
csiph-web