[Webtest] 100% test coverage

[Siegfried Göschl]

BTW - if you would like to check for duplicated code you could have a 
look at PMD (http://pmd.sourceforge.net/) or Simian 
(http://www.redhillconsulting.com.au/products/simian/index.html)

Needless to say that they come with ANT and MAVEN integration

Cheers,

Siegfried Goeschl

On 29 Jul 2003 at 17:40, Dierk Koenig wrote:

> Hiall,
> 
> I'm happy to announce that Canoo WebTest is now covered 100% by its
> selftests. You can explore this under
> http://webtest.canoo.com/webtest/clover/index.html
> 
> The coverage is achieved by a combination of unit tests and
> functional selftests. No manual test is involved.
> 
> There are a few classes that were excluded from the statistics.
> These are classes that I do not expect to be covered 100%:
> - The selftest dummy webapp
>   is very likely also covered 100% but I haven't found an
>   easy way to sneak in the report.
> - The httpunit package
>   is only a playground without any functional purpose.
> - The security package
>   contains wrappers around the JDK JSSE implementation.
>   I just didn't take the challenge to test this, yet.
>   Any help is appreciated.
> - The "Throw" class in the "self" package
>   is a weird thing. It encapsulates the testing of
>   exception handling. Testing its error scenarios is
>   fairly complicated as would involve tweaking JUnit.
> - Append.java
>   should actually be removed from WebTest as it does
>   not belong there.(Tool-Task for testing XSLT with WebTest)
> - AllTests
>   to allow uncovered points of starting TestSuite execution.
> 
> I deliberately included the JUnit test classes.
> That helped me finding tests that were not included in any
> suite and test-methods that re-named in order to suppress
> their execution (like "testMe()" to "_testMe()").
> 
> Overall, the exercise took some time but was not too
> complicated. Seeing the green bar growing was a good
> motivation.
> During the exercise, it appeared to me that untested code
> is very likely to be duplicated or even multiplied.
> Especially centralizing the error handling improved both,
> coverage and code appearance.
> Re-visiting the code for coverage purposes certainly
> improved the codebase.
> 
> Finally, I'd like to emphasize that 100% test coverage has
> nothing to with "code complete" and certainly not "error-free".
> 
> cheers
> Mittie
> 
> 
> *******************************************
> Dierk Koenig
> Canoo Engineering AG
> Kirschgartenstrasse 7
> CH-4051 Basel
> Tel +41 61 228 9444
> Fax +41 61 228 9449
> mailto:dierk.koenig@canoo.com
> http://www.canoo.com
> 
> ULC - Grant your Servlets a Swing Look&Feel
> http://www.canoo.com/ulc
> *******************************************
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WebTest mailing list
> WebTest@lists.canoo.com
> http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest
>