|Problems? Is your data what you think it is?|
Only one bone of contention here:
Depends on the coverage (sorry BrowserUK, this *does* matter). It is easy to make a module to pass all tests if there is only one test that tests nothing: ok (1, "Make it PASS!"); is a legal but useless test
Coverage tools have there place; and that place is for authors, not users!
An automated coverage tool can act as a sanity check; as a guide for the author to decide if s/he has written all the test s/he believes are necessary.
But the moment the numerical summation produced by a dumb code evaluator becomes a tool for users to judge the quality of an author's work and decisions, software development goes to hell in a hand basket.
Until code coverage tools get smart enough to actually write the tests for all the places they suggest need one; they should serve only as suggestions to the human being charged with writing them. And any user who believes that 100% coverage tells them anything about the quality of the testing is in for a very rude awakening.
In the end, always run my own sanity check of the functionality I import from 3rd party modules, and if it appears to produce the correct results for my usage, all the gibberish numbers (supposedly good or bad) produced by the automated test/coverage/kwality/et al tools and processes are entirely meaningless.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Suck that fhit