What I tried is to provide a rough percentage that'll have an impact for test cases. In gross excess of what is reasonably expected. N.B: The above are my personal opinion and it may vary depending upon specific system design or requirements. Pros: 1) We can assure all requirements for test cases are filled up for the time beingĬons: 1) Future measures may require to be taken up for specific situations and in a matter of time Overkill Test Coverage Rate: Keeping it between 80 - 100%. Pros: 1) We can define it as a standard with respect to minimum and overkill criteria 2) Depending upon requirements or situations, options could be created to fill the rest of the percentageĬons: 1) Despite defining it as a standard, we require to keep in mind depending upon specific scenarios, future assumptions should be kept for analysis later Kill and Overkill, does not even pause to define the term, noting only that we possess a supply of nuclear weapons suf ficient not only to. Optimal Test Coverage Rate: Keeping it between 70 - 80%. A very fast motorhead song from 1979, It has the most badass drum into of any song. Pros: 1) The good thing here is we are sure our minimum requirements are met and there are scopes for improvement 2) Gives us the option to explore a bit more for better system designĬons: 1) The remaining 30 - 40% area to explore 2) Changes for future unexpected errors or modifications Minimum Test Coverage Rate: Keeping it between 60 - 70%.
Define overkill code#
Test Coverage: Test coverage is a technique where our test cases cover application code and on specific conditions those test cases are met. Test Coverage, Define minimum, optimal and overkill percentage with pros and cons. As am a novice in this area, would expect few clarifications on the points that I am up to and if these are valid. Well! I was having an argument on test coverage for a project with a friend and below are the points that I stick to.
0 kommentar(er)
