CodeCoverage/Firefly: Difference between revisions

CodeCoverage/Firefly (view source)

97 bytes removed , 7 August 2009

Confirmed users

1,041

edits

Revision as of 18:54, 7 August 2009 (view source) Timr (talk \| contribs) m (→‎Additional pointers for a better decision analysis) ← Older edit		Revision as of 21:17, 7 August 2009 (view source) Robert Strong (talk \| contribs) (→‎Impact of Code Coverage as sole instrument of decision analysis) Newer edit →
Line 25:		Line 25:
	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'''.