aYaFish / bullshtml

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/bullshtml
0 stars 0 forks source link

Wrong conditional count #4

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. measure coverage for large project
2. run covdir and bullshtml on the same regions
3. compare results

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
I expect that all coverage values (percentages) are equal for covdir and 
bullshtml. However, bullshtml C/D Coverage is higher than the one given by 
command covdir.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
1.01

Please provide any additional information below.

For one of our projects the coverage values for C/D coverage given by bullseye 
differ from the values given by covdir command. Since covdir belongs to 
bullseye suite, I think its output is correct. For this project I have 372 
conditions/decisions and 295 are covered. Bullshtml generates 157/184. 
If I check these values in Bullseye coverage browser it seems that bullshtml 
only respects decision coverage (this is 157/184) and not Condition/Decision 
coverage.
Since Bullseye measures C/D, these values should not be ignored.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by dael...@gmail.com on 20 Oct 2010 at 6:07

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Thanks for comment. However, in our organization, no body actually understand 
C/D. So I decided to only count decision. Please understand me. :-)

Original comment by junoy...@gmail.com on 21 Oct 2010 at 2:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
OK ;)
I find condition coverage very useful because sometimes special cases are 
matched by certain conditions and decision coverage does not reflect this.

However, I can break our build by a script which reads C/D coverage and 
bullshtml is just for visualization.

Original comment by dael...@gmail.com on 21 Oct 2010 at 3:34