I was going over our code coverage reports at work and noticed that if the following snippet of code was fully covered, we'd have 100% coverage for one of our modules (with the awkward name of SQL::Stripper):

if ( @chunks > 1 && $chunks[-2] =~ s/$comment$// ) { ... }

In this case, I noticed the following for the SQL::Stripper code coverage:

    line !l  l&&!r  l&&r  condition
    94   51  0      2     @chunks > 1 and $chunks-2 =~ s/$comment$//

The number indicates how many times each condition is exercised. The exact code is this:

    @chunks > 1 && $chunks[-2] =~ s/$comment$//

(Note that code as Devel::Cover reports it is often subtly different, but semantically equivalent, because Devel::Cover runs off of the opcodes).

That code is more or less equivalent to:

   $left && $right

There are only three possibly paths through that (note the headings in the Devel::Cover output I listed above):

$left is false
$left is true, $right is $false
$left and $right are $true

Because of the way the SQL::Stripper code is structured, if $left is true, $right must be true because $right will always have a $comment to remove from the @chunks element. Thus, we have a code coverage condition that cannot be exercised (l&&!r), so the actual full snippet:

if ( @chunks > 1 && $chunks[-2] =~ s/$comment$// ) { pop @chunks; }

Might be better written as this:

if ( @chunks > 1 ) { $chunks[-2] =~ s/$comment$//; # XXX remove comment indicator pop @chunks; # XXX remove the comment }

That will make the code coverage tests report 100% for SQL::Stripper so I made the change. Then I realized the problem. Prior to that snippet is the following code:

my $split = Data::Record->new( { split => $comment, unless => $RE{quoted}, chomp => 0, trim => 1, } ); my @chunks = $split->records($line_of_sql);

That says "for this individual line of SQL, split it on comments and store the sections in @chunks. Then, if we have more than one chunk (assuming only one comment per line), the last chunk is a comment we can discard and the previous chunk just needs the comment marker removed. However, by changing my code to get 100% code coverage, I've made the code more fragile. Previously, the we effectively had an assertion that there was a comment marker in our line of SQL:

if ( @chunks > 1 && $chunks[-2] =~ s/$comment$// ) { pop @chunks; }

But the new code merely assumes we have that comment marker:

if ( @chunks > 1 ) { $chunks[-2] =~ s/$comment$//; # XXX remove comment indicator pop @chunks; # XXX remove the comment }

As a result, if someone alters the code prior to this, the more rigorous code -- which could not achieve 100% code coverage -- would have been safer to use. Using something like Carp::Assert or something similar might help here. It would make the code more robust and allow the 100% code coverage.

That's part of what I like about code coverage. Now that I'm making the above change, the code is a more accurate reflection of what's really happening, though sometimes you really have to sit down and think it through.


New address of my CGI Course.