Code coverage tools can only tell you what lines are executed or not executed, I've never seen one smart enough that you can run it on a test suite, and have it tell you if all the side effects of every executed line of code is also executed.
I agree with you 100%, as I said in the OP
But it occured to me that while this would give you sought after 100% coverage, it not only did nothing to improve the quality of the test, but it allowed a (potential) bug to slip through.The paper I linked to drives how this point even more, if you haven't already, you should give it a read, I thought it was quite good.
In reply to Re^2: Is "ref($class) || $class" a bad thing?
by stvn
in thread Is "ref($class) || $class" a bad thing?
by stvn
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |