First of all I'm new to RCov. I'm having a rails application with around 20 models and 20 controllers + helpers and others. And I've got an unusual good RCov test coverage, 39%(total) and 31%(code coverage) - and this with only 12 RSpec examples. I'm running RCov with the following options: t.rcov_opts = "--callsites --xrefs --no-comments --rails --exclude test/*,spec/*,features/*,factories/*,gems/*" What kind of heuristic is RCov using? I'm reading its manual http://www.linuxcertif.com/man/1/rcov/ and it says: > rcov is a code coverage tool for Ruby. It creates code coverage > reports showing the unit test coverage of the target code. > > rcov does "statement coverage", also referred to as "C0 coverage analysis". It > tests, if each line of the source code has been executed. > > rcov is typically used to find the areas of a program that have not > been sufficiently tested. It reports, what code has not been run by > any test cases. That being said, it means that: (in my case) 31% Lines Of Code of the application logic have been executed by the test files. E.g. if a method has been executed for one test case than that method (the LOC that represent that method) are 100% tested. The bad side is that if a test file loads a Class A (just by including its name into its logic), and doesn't execute any of its method, the methods signatures of that class will count as executed LOC 100% tested, therefore the number can grow quite easy. **Right?** Is an RCov code coverage of 100% really good? Because in my opinion a method should be tested for more than one case but rcov doesn't care about this :(. Is there another tool which does a better job on rails projects than RCov on test coverage?
on 2011-08-25 10:14
on 2011-08-25 13:41
> Is an RCov code coverage of 100% really good? Because in my opinion a > method should be tested for more than one case but rcov doesn't care > about this :(. RCov is C0 coverage. It's trivial to hit >95% coverage; in fact you can very quickly achieve >60% coverage by writing a handful of Cukes on most (simple/new) Rails apps. > And I've got an unusual good RCov test coverage, 39%(total) and 31%(code > coverage) - and this with only 12 RSpec examples. With C0, this isn't unusual. To mitigate this effect, on rails projects we typically have two coverage report builds - just model specs, model + controller specs. I typically expect my codebases to have ~95% coverage for the model build, somewhat higher from the model + controller build. I don't usually look at coverage from Cukes as it doesn't really say very much. > the methods signatures of that class will count as executed LOC > 100% tested, therefore the number can grow quite easy. **Right?** It's not unusual for us to see codebases where the customer mandated a certain coverage number, but the contractor was unfamiliar with TDD and so simply wrote specs with no assertions. The coverage numbers are met, but the specs are useless. You can mitigate this to some extent with a library like heckle, but YMMV. > Is there another tool which does a better job on rails projects than > RCov on test coverage? AFAIK, Ruby tools only provides C0 coverage metrics. Best, Sidu. http://c42.in  http://grosser.it/2008/04/04/whats-my-coverage-c0-...
on 2011-08-25 18:43
On 25 August 2011 09:14, Andrei Ursan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > t.rcov_opts = "--callsites --xrefs --no-comments --rails --exclude > > tests, if each line of the source code has been executed. > tested. The bad side is that if a test file loads a Class A (just by > RCov on test coverage? > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > email@example.com > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > You can get lots of interesting metrics for upto date rails projects using the metrical gem. Integrating such a tool into Continuous Integration is a really good idea. Viewing metrics over a time period and seeing how they change can be very informative. All metrics need to be interpreted relative to the context of the project and the metric. So the answer to your question "Is an RCov code coverage of 100% really good" is - it depends! What you really need to do here is ask better questions :) - which is not easy! The way to use metrics (IMO) is as indicators. With your current c0 coverage of only 39% you can find lots of code that is not tested. You can then find out who wrote the code, and start dealing with the issue of why untested code was added to the project. This reason will vary wildly between projects. Some example reasons will illustrate this - There is only one developer on the project and they are new to TDD. - There is only one developer on the project contributing code with no tests. He refuses to write tests for his code - All the developers want to do TDD, but as they come up to the end of each sprint they feel under to much time pressure to get things done, and so stop doing TDD ... ad infinitum The metric is an indicator there is a problem, but it does not tell you what the problem is. Using multiple metrics and viewing them over time will give you many indicators of possible problems with a project. Properly identifying a problem, with enough precision to have a chance of implementing solutions for it, requires the investigation of the source, developers and the process of development. HTH Andrew
on 2011-08-26 13:55
Thanks for the info and suggestions Sidu & Andrew! I've got the rails project to do some bug fixing and for adding new features. And I wanted to see some metrics before touching the code... anyway I will dig more into it - as I am new to rails and ruby but I like TDD and BDD :D. Any opinions on this topic are welcome! Thanks, Andrei.