"You may want to try generating random input for your unit tests..."
We all do this, by default, don't we? To further, I don't think tests can be (easily) set up to be tested by other tests, but I digress.
A sub should be tested thoroughly so that the return is tested explicitly. This should just be part of the default test regimen. If a new return path is created, it should be added, and tested all the same.
Unless there's some form of AI going on to monitor changes to the sub itself, to see whether the return has changed (or a new return path created), I don't think it's feasible to do what is being asked here.
I suppose a test involving PPI could be used to monitor the structure of the sub itself, but that's going pretty deep (and delves into my comment about hacking live-files live-time above).
Either way, I'd love to see something like this if it's ever presented.
In reply to Re^2: Testing my tests
by stevieb
in thread Testing my tests (mutation testing)
by szabgab
For: | Use: | ||
& | & | ||
< | < | ||
> | > | ||
[ | [ | ||
] | ] |