Coverage numbers are not a perfect indicator.
No they are not, and it seems from looking closer at some of the source that a good amount of Class::DBI seems to be auto-generated (all that __PACKAGE__->mk_something stuff). Which makes it very difficult to check the test's code coverage. But that code is not even included by Devel::Cover in the coverage report anyway (see here). However, a good portion of the code that is checked by Devel::Cover is not tested.
I will agree that Class::DBI is surely better tested than the Devel::Cover numbers give it credit for, but that is not to say that it couldn't use a little more.
In reply to Re^3: Class::DBI -- does it get any easier?
by stvn
in thread Class::DBI -- does it get any easier?
by geektron
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |