TestDriven.NET by Jamie Cansdale

I wish to be able to exclude some error checking code from coverage, e.g. if (arg == null) { Throw new … } Would it be possible to write something like? if (arg == null) { CoverageExcludeBasicBlock(); Throw new … } Ian Ringrose www.ringrose.name email address on website

sounds like a neat trick, though I have been giving CodeCoverage some though within the context of the team I work... conclusion was that it might be desirable not to measure test coverage agains code-statements, but to measure test coverage agains complexity. Since there are ways to determine the complexity of code (such as "Cyclomatic Code Complexity") it might be well possible to measure test-coverage in a way that makes more sense... Do you know about innitiatives in this direction? Does my conclusion hold?

Jamie, the easiest (and most straightforward) way in which this could be implemented is automatically excluding stuff with a complexy of 0 (simple setter, getter, empty custructor) or another configurable complexity level. Taking it further, could mean defining a success ratio, which could be expressed as: my code coverage is acceptable if 95% of my branches are covered. This again shows success when not covering a method without branches (or complexity). This could be visualized the same way unittest success is (red=bad/green=good). Eventually you might be able te not show percentages over LOCs/ covered LOCs, but Branches/ covered branches.

Pingback from  Dealing with Code Un-Coverable by Tests - taccato! trend tracker, cool hunting, new business ideas