>>> How did you evaluate that coverage increased "greatly"? I am not
>>> generally against these tests but I'd be surprised if the overall test
>>> coverage improved noticeably by this. Which makes 10% runtime overhead
>>> pretty hefty if the goal is to actually achieve a high coverage.
>>
>> I was relying on Robins' numbers of coverage:
>
> Those improvements rather likely end up being an improvement a good bit
> less than one percent for the whole binary.
Yes, but it is a valuable percent nevertheless.
As I understand it, the coverage is about the tested command logic. A lot
this logic is dedicated to check permissions (can you add an operator to
this database? ...) and to verify required conditions (is the function
proposed for operator has the right signature? does the operator overwrite
an existing one? ...).
--
Fabien.
