![]() ![]() Is there some scientific background to code coverage and it's outcome? Two members started writing tests that covered a lot of code, but still were green when I went ahead and deleted production code from that covered code. I think it is totally unrealistic to have 80% code coverage for new unit tests and it showed already. So over time we adapted a style of testing a lot of stuff with integration and system tests, which makes sense, as we are heavily integrated into several systems around us (two application servers, eclipse, multiple messaging broker, different database backends. Out of all of them, 3200 are unit tests, so less than 10%. It's been developed for more than ten years and we have around 45000 tests in total, which combine UI, system, integration and unit tests. Now, we are working a product that consistes of two UIs (eclipse and Web) and a java runtime. To give a little bit context, our team recently introduced sonarqube and while I was OOO they decided they wanted a unit test coverage of at least 80% for new code. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |