Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • 1
    Thanks Gnat sounds like a very good answer to my question, I am only waiting a bit if I will get a different opinion Commented Aug 7, 2015 at 11:15
  • I think this is a strawman. When I'm testing for coverage (and I often do), then I don't use function coverage except as a progress indicator – statement coverage, branch coverage, and input bounds testing are far more useful. All of those would have told me that branch was untested. And if we're already doing white-box coverage driven tests, explicitly testing private methods does not seem to be a problem: smaller code units are way easier to verify. When a refactoring breaks the test – that's an useful warning, but I can freely adapt the test since it only covers implementation details. Commented Aug 7, 2015 at 11:47
  • @amon re-check the question asked. Smaller code units have nothing to do with it - it's solely about changing access modifier, not about restructuring / splitting the code Commented Aug 7, 2015 at 12:02
  • ...as for coverage analysis, it looks like you over-complicate things. Tools I used (more precisely, tools used by QA folks against my code - 'cause it's their job to verify quality) simply told me what lines of code were executed by the tests and what weren't. It's that simple - you just go over lines of code that are reported as gaps and figure what tests to add / modify to make them executed Commented Aug 7, 2015 at 12:26
  • related discussion: Is it a bad practice to modify code strictly for testing purposes Commented Mar 21, 2016 at 12:25