From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:52:45 GMT Subject: [PATCH v3 7/7] t/README: Add a note about the dangers of coverage chasing Message-ID: <1280087565-24671-8-git-send-email-avarab@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1280087565-24671-1-git-send-email-avarab@gmail.com> Having no coverage at all is almost always a bad sign, but trying to attain 100% coverage everywhere is usually a waste of time. Add a paragraph to explain this to future test writers. Inspired-by: Jonathan Nieder Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason --- Jonathan doesn't particularly like this one. I have no particular preference, just trying to get across the point that you shouldn't cargo-cult-coverage. t/README | 9 +++++++++ 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/t/README b/t/README index 15d4b52..4fe8d50 100644 --- a/t/README +++ b/t/README @@ -271,6 +271,15 @@ Do: - Check the test coverage for your tests. See the "Test coverage" below. + Don't blindly follow test coverage metrics, they're a good way to + spot if you've missed something. If a new function you added + doesn't have any coverage you're probably doing something wrong, + but having 100% coverage doesn't necessarily mean that you tested + everything. + + Tests that are likely to smoke out future regressions are better + than tests that just inflate the coverage metrics. + Don't: - exit() within a