• Walter Bright (3/3) Oct 04 2013 When running:
• Brian Schott (2/5) Oct 04 2013 "lexer.d is 86% covered"
• Jacob Carlborg (4/5) Oct 04 2013 Do we have a minimum coverage level?
• Brian Schott (2/3) Oct 04 2013 If we do, nobody has written it down.
• Walter Bright (6/9) Oct 04 2013 No, but any "low hanging fruit" uncovered lines need to get test cases a...

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

When running:

    dmd std/d/lexer -cov -main -unittest

what is the percent coverage?

"Brian Schott" <briancschott gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 4 October 2013 at 18:03:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 When running:

    dmd std/d/lexer -cov -main -unittest

 what is the percent coverage?

"lexer.d is 86% covered"

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 2013-10-04 20:10, Brian Schott wrote:

 "lexer.d is 86% covered"

Do we have a minimum coverage level?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

"Brian Schott" <briancschott gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 4 October 2013 at 18:32:59 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 Do we have a minimum coverage level?

If we do, nobody has written it down.

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 10/4/2013 11:32 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 2013-10-04 20:10, Brian Schott wrote:

 "lexer.d is 86% covered"

 Do we have a minimum coverage level?

No, but any "low hanging fruit" uncovered lines need to get test cases added, 
i.e. there needs to be some sort of justification for lines not covered.

In general, I'd say we need to be shooting for >= 95%.

If you look at phobos' win32.mak, which lists coverage percentages for the 
various phobos modules, a lot of phobos modules are very inadequately covered.