improving code coverage issue #615 #616
Conversation
| @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ | |||
| package zingg.common.core.model; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do not see the value in creating a model instance here. the static method can be tested directly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The model class is an abstract class. This was one of the methods to test it, or we can test it through it's implementations. But it is not being used anywhere.
Please guide me if there is any other way to test this class
| @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ | |||
| package zingg.common.core.sink; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we dont use the tableoutput class anywhere in the code so can you please remove the test annotations so that this code is not run.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if we start using the class, we can utilize this junit, so it makes sense to keep it
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| public void testIdentityLong1() { |
| @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ | |||
| package zingg.hash; | |||
|
|
|||
| import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertFalse; | |||
| @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ | |||
| package zingg.hash; | |||
|
|
|||
| import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you please test for negative values as well
| @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ | |||
| package zingg.hash; | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what happens if you give a range say -10 and -100? What happens with 0,0? see if you can break these functions.
|
@vikasgupta78 can you pease get this to completion? |
|
@gnanaprakash-ravi if you have time can you look at this and incorporate review comments as suggested by Sonal |
|
Sure, I will look into it!! |
|
I have some ideas on this one, so please talk to me before you start |
#615
improving code coverage for zingg/common/core:
/hash to 97% coverage
model and sink both to 100% coverage