[vtk-developers] VTK Code Coverage

[Aashish Chaudhary]

If we want to use a unit test library, I would recommend googletest (I
have some testing with it and found it better compare to cppunit). Its
BSD license and I think other folks at Kitware are using gtest
(correct me if I am wrong).

For some of the comparisons, read here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7922289/googletest-vs-cppunit-the-facts

and here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/242926/comparison-of-c-unit-test-frameworks

Best,


On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Nikhil Shetty
<nikhil.shetty at kitware.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM, David Cole <david.cole at kitware.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Nikhil Shetty <nikhil.shetty at kitware.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Bill,
>> >
>> > Are you planning to bring in some type of Unit Testing into VTK?
>> >
>> > Currently each tests in VTK tests a bunch of different classes spread
>> > across
>> > different modules. An obvious disadvantage is that some parts of the
>> > code
>> > keeps getting tested multiple times which is sort of pointless (in terms
>> > of
>> > testing). With unit testing one could just focus on one class at at
>> > time.
>> >
>>
>> +1 for unit tests...
>>
>> BUT:
>> testing multiple times is not pointless -- there are limitless
>> possibilities of "combinations of stuff" -- and only with certain
>> combinations will you find some problem cases.
>>
>> Testing as much as you have resources for (but no more) is ALWAYS a good
>> idea.
>>
>> Both are useful.
>>
>
> Definitely Agree.
>
>>
>>
>> > Also a unit testing approach may be good for focused coverage where one
>> > is
>> > focused on improving coverage on a limited set of classes.
>> >
>> > There are many unit test frameworks out there. CppUnit seem to a good
>> > one.
>> >
>> > -Nikihl
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> My main concern is that vtk coverage is very low, and unacceptable.
>> >>
>> >> I would rather spend time on improving the coverage. If others want to
>> >> improve the process, that is great. Past experience shows that too much
>> >> time
>> >> is spent on testing process and too little on actual testing.
>> >>
>> >> I say go for it, but I will concentrate in test coverage.
>> >>
>> >> Bill
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:34 PM, David Doria <daviddoria at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Bill Lorensen
>> >>> <bill.lorensen at gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > Folks,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I mentioned earlier that my Fall/Winter VTK project is improving
>> >>> > code
>> >>> > coverage.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I'm starting with some low hanging fruit, namely Common/Core which
>> >>> > has
>> >>> > 19
>> >>> > files flagged by cdash as low coverage:
>> >>> > http://open.cdash.org/viewCoverage.php?buildid=2568829
>> >>> >
>> >>> > For example I just pushed this topic to gerrit that addresses
>> >>> > testing
>> >>> > for
>> >>> > vtkTimePointUtilities, a class that has 0 coverage. I'm pretty sure
>> >>> > there
>> >>> > are bugs in this code, mainly surrounding boundary conditions that
>> >>> > would not
>> >>> > affect its usage, whatever that may be.
>> >>> > http://review.source.kitware.com/#/t/1295/
>> >>> >
>> >>> > But rather than rant, I'll ask the community to review the gerrit
>> >>> > topics.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Bill
>> >>>
>> >>> This sounds like a great project.
>> >>>
>> >>> If you are going to be adding tons of tests, can we discuss a
>> >>> standardized format for them? The current method of putting everything
>> >>> in Test[TestName]() seems very error prone (accidental use of
>> >>> previously defined variables, name clashes, etc) and is definitely
>> >>> hard to read. I have pushed a new patch set that breaks some things
>> >>> out into functions. Is there any problem with doing it like this? It
>> >>> seems much more readable to me. In this case these functions are all
>> >>> void (because the content doesn't get checked for failure anyway), but
>> >>> of course they could return 'int' so that 'return EXIT_SUCCESS' could
>> >>> be ANDed with the other tests to produce the final test return value.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thoughts?
>> >>>
>> >>> David
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Unpaid intern in BillsBasement at noware dot com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Powered by www.kitware.com
>> >>
>> >> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>> >> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>> >>
>> >> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> >> http://www.vtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Powered by www.kitware.com
>> >
>> > Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>> > http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>> >
>> > Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> > http://www.vtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.vtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers
>
>



-- 
| Aashish Chaudhary
| R&D Engineer
| Kitware Inc.
| www.kitware.com