如果您强制要求单元测试的代码覆盖率的最低百分比,甚至可能作为提交到存储库的要求,它会是什么?
请解释你是如何得出你的答案的(因为如果你所做的只是选择一个数字,那么我自己也可以完成;)
如果您强制要求单元测试的代码覆盖率的最低百分比,甚至可能作为提交到存储库的要求,它会是什么?
请解释你是如何得出你的答案的(因为如果你所做的只是选择一个数字,那么我自己也可以完成;)
当前回答
许多商店不看重测试的价值,所以如果你高于零,至少有一些价值的升值——所以可以说非零并不是坏事,因为许多仍然是零。
在。net世界中,人们经常引用80%作为合理的。但题目说的是溶液水平。我更喜欢在项目级别进行度量:如果有Selenium等或手动测试,那么UI项目的30%可能就可以了,数据层项目的20%可能就可以了,但是对于业务规则层(如果不是完全必要的话),95%以上可能是可以实现的。因此,总体覆盖率可能是60%,但关键业务逻辑可能更高。
我也听过这样的话:追求100%,你就能达到80%;但是,立志达到80%,你就会达到40%。
底线:应用80:20规则,让应用程序的bug计数来指导你。
其他回答
许多商店不看重测试的价值,所以如果你高于零,至少有一些价值的升值——所以可以说非零并不是坏事,因为许多仍然是零。
在。net世界中,人们经常引用80%作为合理的。但题目说的是溶液水平。我更喜欢在项目级别进行度量:如果有Selenium等或手动测试,那么UI项目的30%可能就可以了,数据层项目的20%可能就可以了,但是对于业务规则层(如果不是完全必要的话),95%以上可能是可以实现的。因此,总体覆盖率可能是60%,但关键业务逻辑可能更高。
我也听过这样的话:追求100%,你就能达到80%;但是,立志达到80%,你就会达到40%。
底线:应用80:20规则,让应用程序的bug计数来指导你。
我使用cobertura,无论百分比是多少,我都建议保持cobertura检查任务中的值是最新的。至少,不断提高totallinerate和totalbranrate到刚好低于你当前的覆盖率,但永远不要降低这些值。还将Ant构建失败属性绑定到此任务。如果构建因为缺乏覆盖而失败,那么您知道有人添加了代码,但没有测试它。例子:
<cobertura-check linerate="0"
branchrate="0"
totallinerate="70"
totalbranchrate="90"
failureproperty="build.failed" />
我想分享另一个关于测试报道的趣闻。
我们有一个巨大的项目,在twitter上,我注意到,700个单元测试,我们只有20%的代码覆盖率。
斯科特·汉塞尔曼的回答充满智慧:
这是正确的20%吗?是20%吗 代表您的用户的代码 打击最大?你可能会再加50个 测试后只添加2%
这又回到了我关于代码覆盖率的答案。你应该在锅里放多少米?视情况而定。
直到几天前,我们的目标是>的80%,但在我们使用了大量生成代码后,我们并不关心%age,而是让审核人员决定覆盖率要求。
Alberto Savoia的这篇散文恰好回答了这个问题(以一种非常有趣的方式!):
http://www.artima.com/forums/flat.jsp?forum=106&thread=204677
Testivus On Test Coverage Early one morning, a programmer asked the great master: “I am ready to write some unit tests. What code coverage should I aim for?” The great master replied: “Don’t worry about coverage, just write some good tests.” The programmer smiled, bowed, and left. ... Later that day, a second programmer asked the same question. The great master pointed at a pot of boiling water and said: “How many grains of rice should I put in that pot?” The programmer, looking puzzled, replied: “How can I possibly tell you? It depends on how many people you need to feed, how hungry they are, what other food you are serving, how much rice you have available, and so on.” “Exactly,” said the great master. The second programmer smiled, bowed, and left. ... Toward the end of the day, a third programmer came and asked the same question about code coverage. “Eighty percent and no less!” Replied the master in a stern voice, pounding his fist on the table. The third programmer smiled, bowed, and left. ... After this last reply, a young apprentice approached the great master: “Great master, today I overheard you answer the same question about code coverage with three different answers. Why?” The great master stood up from his chair: “Come get some fresh tea with me and let’s talk about it.” After they filled their cups with smoking hot green tea, the great master began to answer: “The first programmer is new and just getting started with testing. Right now he has a lot of code and no tests. He has a long way to go; focusing on code coverage at this time would be depressing and quite useless. He’s better off just getting used to writing and running some tests. He can worry about coverage later.” “The second programmer, on the other hand, is quite experience both at programming and testing. When I replied by asking her how many grains of rice I should put in a pot, I helped her realize that the amount of testing necessary depends on a number of factors, and she knows those factors better than I do – it’s her code after all. There is no single, simple, answer, and she’s smart enough to handle the truth and work with that.” “I see,” said the young apprentice, “but if there is no single simple answer, then why did you answer the third programmer ‘Eighty percent and no less’?” The great master laughed so hard and loud that his belly, evidence that he drank more than just green tea, flopped up and down. “The third programmer wants only simple answers – even when there are no simple answers … and then does not follow them anyway.” The young apprentice and the grizzled great master finished drinking their tea in contemplative silence.