Re: Perl Skills

At the risk of adding to an already ambitious syllabus, may I suggest that you create a simple module which fills some personal need and build a test suite providing 100% coverage of your code base. I found that a very useful exercise in many ways.

-- Hugh

P.S.

In response to Moritz, yes, achieving 100% coverage is not always possible -- even when I invest the time and energy, but the quest for that goal has proven very educational for me. And it has never hurt my code base to have better coverage.

if( $lal && $lol ) { $life++; }
if( $insurance->rationing() ) { $people->die(); }

Comment on Re: Perl Skills

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Perl Skills by moritz (Cardinal) on Jun 15, 2010 at 11:56 UTC
100% coverage isn't always achievable. For example I put Carp::confess statements in some of my modules to catch internal errors. When my module works fine, there is simply no way to trigger them. They are dead code. Still they are very useful, because when I change something and break the module, I get much better error messages than without those statements. One could try to trigger thee cases by monkey-patching the module to misbehave, but I think that's a rather foolish idea.	[reply]
Re^3: Perl Skills by Ratazong (Monsignor) on Jun 15, 2010 at 15:45 UTC
Our way to reach 100% coverage is the following: we do module-test to cover as near as 100% as possible if we reach less than 100% (this is the normal case), we analyze/review all parts that were not covered by the test if we discover testing-gaps, we enhance the module test if some code is really not testable, but OK according the analysis/review, we consider it covered With that proceeding it is always possible to reach the 100% coverage. And I don't think it is cheating ;-) HTH, Rata	[reply]
Re^2: Perl Skills by eyepopslikeamosquito (Archbishop) on Jun 17, 2010 at 21:44 UTC
See also: Lessons learned from getting to 100% with Devel::Cover When 100% Code Coverage Backfires How to misuse code coverage by Brian Marick How to shoot yourself in the foot with code coverage Unit Testing	[reply]


Think about Loose Coupling
	PerlMonks