Added Branch Coverage Tool & Unit Tests for parseEntry()#2
Merged
Conversation
Increases manual branch coverage by ~5 percentage points.
This simplifies test inspection in the future.
Add final test cases and simplify the existing test cases. Now, they are properly based on the PICA spec.
SoFoDa
requested changes
Feb 17, 2020
Refactoring added helper functions with descriptive names, as well as a separate helper function for configuring the final BibEntry
SoFoDa
approved these changes
Feb 17, 2020
Now it is adjusted based on the refactoring
Change names to same structure
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Added
GvkParser::parseEntry(). The tool consideredif,else(and if one was missing, it was inserted),for(and skippedforloops). It does not consider nestedifstatements that are specifically a result of short-circuiting. No ternary operators or try/catch were encountered. The tool has results that are relatively consistent with the automated tool for this project,Jacoco.~75%to~84%using our coverage tool.