-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Added Branch Coverage Tool & Unit Tests for parseEntry() #2
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice job 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
parseEntry()
seems to be a good candidate in terms of refactoring. We could refactor each tag procedure into smaller functions before merging.
Refactoring added helper functions with descriptive names, as well as a separate helper function for configuring the final BibEntry
Now it is adjusted based on the refactoring
Change names to same structure
Added
GvkParser::parseEntry()
. The tool consideredif
,else
(and if one was missing, it was inserted),for
(and skippedfor
loops). It does not consider nestedif
statements 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.