From: Robert Feldt <feldt@...>
Date: 2004-03-22T08:16:53+09:00
Subject: Re: [ann] coverage 0.1

Simon Strandgaard wrote:

>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 ?
>
>  
>
I would probably test the statement coverage calc independently of the 
html generation and save the latter for later... ;)
or test the latter with some simple, "faked" stmt coverage data.

BTW, some student reported it might sometimes miss the end statements so 
coverage is not 100% even though all "executable" stmts have actually 
been executed. I don't have the details though.

>>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 ?
>
>  
>
Not that I've heard of but I have a thesis student starting next week 
who will work on a (simple) one.

/Robert