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
从Testivus的帖子中,我认为答案上下文应该是第二个程序员。
从实际的角度来看,我们需要争取参数/目标。
我认为这可以在敏捷过程中进行“测试”,方法是分析我们拥有的代码、架构、功能(用户故事),然后得出一个数字。根据我在电信领域的经验,我认为60%是一个很好的值。
其他回答
这在很大程度上取决于您的应用程序。例如,一些应用程序主要由不能进行单元测试的GUI代码组成。
一般来说,从我读过的几篇工程卓越最佳实践论文来看,单元测试中80%的新代码是产生最佳回报的点。如果超过这个CC%,所付出的努力就会产生更少的缺陷。这是许多大公司所采用的最佳实践。
不幸的是,这些结果大多是公司内部的,所以我没有公开的文献可供参考。
我认为不可能有这样的B/W规则。 应该审查代码,特别注意关键细节。 然而,如果它没有经过测试,它就有一个bug!
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.
代码覆盖率很好,但功能覆盖率更好。我不喜欢把我写的每一行都写一遍。但是我相信编写100%的测试覆盖我想要提供的所有功能(即使是我自己带来的额外的很酷的功能,这些功能在会议中没有讨论)。
我不关心我的代码是否会在测试中被覆盖,但我关心的是我是否会重构我的代码并最终具有不同的行为。因此,100%的功能覆盖率是我的唯一目标。