Re: [Jack-Devel] [LAU] jack2 turned verbose

On 06/03/2012 06:16 PM, Nedko Arnaudov wrote:
> Florian Paul Schmidt<[hidden]>  writes:
> 100% code coverage in tests does not guarantee all bugs are found. You
> also need to test 100% of all possible input/output pairs.. Example: I
> have a function that calculates some mathematical function and has a
> conditional branch somewhere in it. Now I write two tests (one
> input/output pair each to compare against) to cover both cases of the
> conditional. Does that guarantee to me that the code works for ALL
> inputs? No, not at all. Only reasoning (a.k.a. a proof) will give you
> that...
> Yes, 100% code coverage is not enough but is still required.
>
> So users shall do what? Hope and pray? Or play a prey? Whats the
> direction? Are there any automated tests? Or we use users as guinea
> pigs? Is this how free software is supposed to work?
>

I'm not trying to make a case against tests :D Tests are a good thing. I 
just wanted to point out that 100% code coverage is not enough to "be 
sure"..

Flo

1338743248.30362_0.ltw:2,a <4FCB99C7.8010904 at gmx dot net>