Add diffblue tests #4
Open
Conversation
This file contains 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
Coverage: 44.7%
Coverage: 62.0%
Coverage: 59.5%
Coverage: 44.7%
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We’ve produced a set of regressions tests for the following modules waltz-common and waltz-model. We’ve split the results of the analysis up to showcase the approach of two separate engines. The total analysis time took 6 minutes and 35 seconds producing 1491 tests, we estimated that this would save your developers 124 workdays.
* Manual effort assumes industry averages of 30 minutes per manual test and 6 hours productive time per day. (https://www.diffblue.com/goldman-sachs/)
The combined coverage per module of the two engine is 67.0% for "waltz-common" and 64.1% for "waltz-model"
We look forward to discussing the results.