Re: functions missing tests: goal of tests?

[fgnievinski]

I think all requirements follow from code coverage, meaning 
Once you've reached 100% there's nothing more to check.

I think it should always be assumed that the functions called 
are reliable -- otherwise it's them that need better testing. 

Sometimes you might find that splitting up a given function 
into sub-functions reduces the combinatorial coverage, e.g.:

function out = a (in)
   out = b (c (in));
end

Then if you test b and c separately, you don't need to test 
all the combinations of input for b and c.

-F.




--
View this message in context: 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/functions-missing-tests-goal-of-tests-tp4661016p4661022.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.