4 ms·
The errors were usually in tests themselves. Are you arguing that tests need their own tests to test that they are testing the right thing? Usually I think peop
by geofft 5y ago
The errors were usually in tests themselves. Are you arguing that tests need their own tests to test that they are testing the right thing? Usually I think people believe that tests do not need to be tested and should not be tested, i.e., that you measure "100% coverage" against non-test code alone.
- samhw 5y agoI don't think anyone could disagree: you could never exceed 0% code coverage if your definition was recursive (i.e. included tests, tests-of-tests, tests-of-tests-of-tests, ...).
- Cpoll 5y agoOnly if you generate infinite tests, then your coverage approaches 0%. But 100% covered code + 0% covered tests = ~50% total coverage. Also, the obvious solution is self-testing code. (Jokes aside, structures like code contracts attempt something like this).