manually yes, not generated.
Szabgab only hinted about tests that handle code like $a+ switched to $a-
so in the following case
sub foo { my ($a,$b) = @_; return $a + $b; }
testing foo(*,0) (with * any number) will always pass, even if you change + to -
If several pairs of values were generated by a random generator and the result was approved manually, then the likelyhood of a false positive would be minimal.
And new test input could be generated quickly, depending on the manual decision if the code change was really intended or just a bug.
As I said to (semi-) automatize this one needed to parse already a lot of the functions body.
Anyway I don't want to elaborate more, without further explanation by the OP. (the requirements sound paradoxial)
Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
Je suis Charlie!
In reply to Re^3: Testing my tests
by LanX
in thread Testing my tests (mutation testing)
by szabgab
For: | Use: | ||
& | & | ||
< | < | ||
> | > | ||
[ | [ | ||
] | ] |