Closed
Bug 592748
Opened 15 years ago
Closed 6 years ago
Code-coverage - AS3 Classes: Date
Categories
(Tamarin Graveyard :: Tools, defect)
Tamarin Graveyard
Tools
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
WONTFIX
Q2 12 - Cyril
People
(Reporter: cpeyer, Unassigned)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: code-coverage)
Attachments
(2 files)
5.58 KB,
text/plain
|
Details | |
22.87 KB,
patch
|
brbaker
:
review-
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
as of redux r5139:
covered total covered total
class functions functions pct cond cond pct
Date 58 61 95.1 163 191 85.3
Coverage of:
avmplus::Date::
avmplus::DateClass::
avmplus::DateObject::
Flags: flashplayer-qrb?
Updated•14 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → dschaffe
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: --- → flash10.1.x-Salt
Updated•14 years ago
|
Flags: flashplayer-qrb? → flashplayer-qrb+
Updated•14 years ago
|
Target Milestone: flash10.1.x-Salt → flash10.2.x-Spicy
Updated•14 years ago
|
Assignee: dschaffe → brbaker
Updated•14 years ago
|
Target Milestone: flash10.2.x-Spicy → flash10.x - Serrano
Updated•14 years ago
|
Assignee: brbaker → dschaffe
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
From Date,DateClass,DateObject I get 84 functions and 417 conditions. I think the difference is global functions within the Date.cpp file. My results with patch are:
Class Function Coverage C/D Coverage
--------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
avmplus::DateObject:: 39 / 39 = 100% 8 / 10 = 80%
avmplus::DateClass:: 6 / 6 = 100% 65 / 80 = 81%
avmplus:: 84 / 84 = 100% 345 / 417 = 82%
avmplus::Date:: 14 / 14 = 100% 92 / 101 = 91%
--------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
Total 84 / 84 = 100% 345 / 417 = 82%
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
Testcase to cover conditions in:
avmplus::MakeDay()
avmplus::MakeTime()
Comment 3•14 years ago
|
||
merged Brent's constructor.as with new selftest for date.
Attachment #485116 -
Flags: review?(brbaker)
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 485116 [details] [diff] [review]
new Date tests
// TEST: constructor with Date object
- Should test that the constructed date is actually the same as the passed in date instead of just !=NULL
d2->getTime()==d1->getTime()
// TEST: toStringInvalid
- Should verify that res==false, I assume this is the test that the formatIndex hits the default switch case which returns false.
// TEST: setDate negative values
- I don't see a code path in Date::setDate() that actually deals with negative values, this is just being passed into Date::MakeDay()
// TEST setDate NaN
- Do these overlap with as3/Date/constructor.as?
as3/Date/timezone.as
- The second test name is incorrect, it is not testing "test Date getTimezoneOffset" it is calling secondsUTC. Could this testcase also set the secondsUTC to some value that it is not already and confirm that it is set properly?
* Currently d1 is already created with seconds==0, so maybe calling d1.secondsUTC=12, then you can test that d1.seconds==12 instead of just !=NULL, which it already was.
Attachment #485116 -
Flags: review?(brbaker) → review-
Updated•14 years ago
|
Target Milestone: Q3 11 - Serrano → Q4 11 - Anza
Updated•13 years ago
|
Assignee: dschaffe → nobody
Target Milestone: Q1 12 - Brannan → Q2 12 - Cyril
Comment 6•6 years ago
|
||
No assignee, updating the status.
Comment 7•6 years ago
|
||
No assignee, updating the status.
Comment 8•6 years ago
|
||
No assignee, updating the status.
Comment 9•6 years ago
|
||
Tamarin isn't maintained anymore. WONTFIX remaining bugs.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•