[PATCH v2 7/7] t/README: Add a note about the dangers of coverage chasing
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:49:11
Subsystem:
the rest · Maintainer:
Linus Torvalds
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 [off-list ref] Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <redacted> --- t/README | 9 +++++++++ 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/t/README b/t/README
index 2fa6744..400e2da 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 <script> part.
--
1.7.0.4