From: Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-05-07T06:16:46+09:00
Subject: Re: Typo-checking instead of static typing


Le 6/5/2005, "Ben Giddings" <bg-rubytalk@infofiend.com> a �crit:
>On Wednesday 04 May 2005 15:36, Joost Diepenmaat wrote:
>> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:49:30AM +0900, Ben Giddings wrote:
>> [ snip ]
>>
>> > def do_something(foo)
>> >   if foo > 500
>> >     puts "Whoa, #{fo} is too many times!  I can't do that!"
>> >   else
>> >     foo.times { |i| puts i }
>> >   end
>> > end
>> >
>> > do_something(ARGV[0])
>>
>> Use a code coverage tool to run over your unit tests, and fix your
>> tests to go to 100% coverage. That's what I usually try to do in Perl
>anyway.
>>
>> Pointers to coverage tools for ruby anyone?
>
>I sent an email reply to this, but nobody followed up, but I'm really
>interested to hear the answer.

I have a feeling I am answering to the wrong person, but:

Did you try Ryan Davis' zentest[1]? It automatically generates
tests for an existing codebase and should even take into account
any existing tests. I have not used it extensively but it might be
a good starting point?

>The suggestion here was to write unit tests to make sure that the line with
>the typo is caught ("Whoa, #{fo} ..." instead of "Whoa, #{foo} ...")
>
>My question is this.  If the "Ruby Way" to find this bug is by unit tests,
>what suite of tests would be recommended for this snippet of code?  Keep
>in mind, that the original code is only 8 lines long.
>
>Is it realistic to expect that someone would write more than 8 lines of
>unit tests?
>
>Ben

E

[1] http://www.zenspider.com/ZSS/Products/ZenTest/

--
template<typename duck>
void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }