Closed inpefess closed 8 months ago
Hey, thanks! Always happy to have more unit tests.
Did you use gcov
to determine the coverage, looking at #516 ? Was it useful?
Hey, thanks! Always happy to have more unit tests.
Great! I'll continue adding tests for Lib
classes then.
Did you use
gcov
to determine the coverage, looking at #516 ? Was it useful?
Yes, exactly. It helped me identify functions not covered by other tests (Set.hpp
already had a decent coverage) or specific cases missed by more general ones. I can create a PR for #516 based on my current pipeline and existing Giles' script.
Great! I'll continue adding tests for
Lib
classes then.
Fantastic. Fair warning that I intend in the mid-term to improve (remove) some of the functionality in Lib/
, but I suspect that your unit tests will be nonetheless useful in this endeavour. Besides, I have a looooong Vampire to-do list, so it won't be very soon. :-)
Set.hpp
has relatively high coverage, but not 100%. I also addedDummyHash
to cover cases when calls tohash
return the same value (or value with a reserved meaning in current implementation). One shouldn't useDummyHash
anywhere but for unit-tests.