Re: Class::DBI -- does it get any easier?

i think i just felt my productivity double, and for those who haven't started using Class::DBI, i strongly suggest looking into it.

Productivity gains aside, before i start using it, it would be nice if it was a bit more thoroughly tested. The test coverage seems to be a very low 24% (see here for details). It is on the list of the Phalanx 100, maybe someone who uses it could pick it up for a week or so and improve the tests a bit. If enough people do that it would surely be up to 90-100% in no time.

-stvn

Comment on Re: Class::DBI -- does it get any easier?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Class::DBI -- does it get any easier? by perrin (Chancellor) on Nov 12, 2004 at 16:39 UTC
Coverage numbers are not a perfect indicator. Class::DBI has one of the largest test suites around, and Tony always asks people to submit tests with their patches. It is a well-tested module.	[reply]
Re^3: Class::DBI -- does it get any easier? by stvn (Monsignor) on Nov 12, 2004 at 20:49 UTC
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. -stvn	[reply] [d/l]