183
edits
CodeCoverage/Firefly: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Mnandigama (talk | contribs) |
Mnandigama (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Given the above information, one tends to gravitate towards low code coverage components to develop tests to improve product quality. | Given the above information, one tends to gravitate towards low code coverage components to develop tests to improve product quality. | ||
However, if you are provided an additional data point, like size of the component, you may realize that filling a 40% coverage gap in say '''Content''' gives you a bigger bang for the buck than improving 100% code coverage in '''xpinstall'''. [Side note: This data is generated on Linux so, there would be no coverage for '''xpinstall'''] | However, if you are provided an additional data point, like size of the component, you may realize that filling a 40% coverage gap in say '''Content''' gives you a bigger bang for the buck than improving 100% code coverage in '''xpinstall'''. [Side note: This data is generated on Linux so, there would be no coverage for '''xpinstall'''] | ||
[[Image:Covdatafilesize.PNG|center|Component sizes : Number of files in a component]] | |||
== How == | == How == | ||