From: Simon Strandgaard <neoneye@...>
Date: 2004-03-22T08:09:31+09:00
Subject: Re: [ann] coverage 0.1

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:45:26 +0900, Robert Feldt wrote:
> Simon Strandgaard wrote:
> 
>>Ruby - Coverage
>>
>>  
>>
> Just wanted to note that you have some users of this...
> 
> The students in my "Requirements Engineering and Verification and 
> Validation" course have done statement coverage analysis while testing. 
> They used a script based on a previous version of yours.
> 

awesome, I have only played with it as an experiment. 
I have never thought it was being used.
I feel bad making packages without doing test-first and supplying a 
testsuite to ensure the quality and robustness.
Batsman reminded me that I had this experimental package.. I had
completely forgotten about it (my brain contains only regexp+book).

Sorry.  I better make it more usable ;-)

BTW: Any ideas how to test the outputted webpages ?


> BTW, there is a rather delicate issue you might want to address: which 
> rb files not to include in the analysis. My students used this when 
> running their tests to see how well the tests covered the code. They 
> found that all required files are included though, even std rb files 
> like the ones in the lib needed for unit testing etc. Default might be 
> to exclude these files.

Batsman has been kind to fix it.  The problem was that #add_file, added
too many files ;-)

def add_file(file, line_marked)
    percent = calc_coverage(line_marked)
    path = File.expand_path(file)
    return nil if path =~ /\A#{Regexp.escape(CONFIG["rubylibdir"])}/
    return nil if path =~ /\A#{Regexp.escape(CONFIG["sitelibdir"])}/  

 
> Also they mentioned that the html files should be saved to a dir local 
> to where the script is run and not in the absolute path of the 
> corresponding rb file.

A local dir.. I will add that to the todo list right away.
Will fix this tonight if im not getting too tired.

 
> Maybe you have already fixed these issues...

yes/no.   Thanks for the suggestions.

 
> BTW, I hacked up something similar to nounit.sf.net for them to use in 
> their project but never had the time to finish it. Maybe we should merge 
> our efforts into some kind of test evaluation package?
>

I will check that project out.

Merge.. Sounds good.


BTW: does there exists any static analysis tools for Ruby ?

--
Simon Strandgaard