10:17 a.m.
There is nothing stopping you taking the output and producing a report in your CI showing
lines (Rules) in red and green as to whether they have been touched as part of the tests -
if you separate out your rules into a separate module you could probably output the report
in the exact same format as the standard java report xml and get the standard tools to
output an almost identical report.
Thomas
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of mike
Sent: 23 January 2012 16:14
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Code Coverage
I could argue this left and right with my managers ... but in reality when we mention code
coverage we mean looking at a report in CI showing lines of code in green or red ...
anything short of that is something else
Thank you very much for the response
Cheers
Mike
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Wolfgang Laun
<wolfgang.laun@gmail.com<mailto:wolfgang.laun@gmail.com>> wrote:
It is highly recommended as "best practice" to have RHS code that
doesn't contain any branching instructions. Then, executing means full
coverage.
In case it is necessary to have more complex code I'd not put it into
a RHS anyway (where it isn't really OO any more) but I'd code it in
Java files and just call from the RHS.
For the LHS you can also argue that firing proves coverage; although
it won't be full *expression* logic coverage, due to potentially
skipped subexpressions in disjunctions.
-W
On 23/01/2012, mike <mikemps@gmail.com<mailto:mikemps@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thank you very much Thomas ... yes, what i need is standard code
coverage
... my company is all over that metric
cheers
Mike
2012/1/23 Swindells, Thomas <TSwindells@nds.com<mailto:TSwindells@nds.com>>
> It depends what you are asking for,****
>
> If you just want to know what proportion of rules you have written have
> actually activated then that can be simply achieved by having a
> AgendaEventListener and using it to 'tick' rules off when they have been
> triggered - the blog entry should have you achieve this.****
>
> ** **
>
> If you actually want to integrate it with standard java code coverage
> reports then this is a different question and is likely to be much harder,
> if not impossible, ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thomas****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:*
rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org>
[mailto:
>
rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org>] *On
Behalf Of *mike
> *Sent:* 23 January 2012 14:34
> *To:* Rules Users List
>
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Code Coverage****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you very much ... as far as i know in order to do code coverage i
> need to instrument the packages i'm interested in covering ... this
> recommendation doesn't take me in that direction****
>
> ** **
>
> It is very useful however in showing a way to test rules individually.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you****
>
> Mike ****
>
> ** **
>
> 2012/1/17 Toni Rikkola
<toni.rikkola@gmail.com<mailto:toni.rikkola@gmail.com>>****
>
> You need to write the coverage tests for JUnit yourself. Test Scenarios in
> Guvnor do this, but you can't use them outside Guvnor. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Test Scenarios get all the rule names for the rules in one package and
> then compares that list to the rules that fired.****
>
> Edson's blog entry might help you
> http://blog.athico.com/2011/10/cookbook-how-to-test-rules-using-xunit.html
> .****
>
> ** **
>
> Toni****
>
> ** **
>
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 5:49 PM, mike wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi there,****
>
> ** **
>
> I was wondering if its possible to measure code coverage on test running
> against a set of rules.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you****
>
> Mike****
>
> ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users****
>
> ** **
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
**************************************************************************************
> This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you
> have received this message in error, please immediately notify the
> postmaster@nds.com<mailto:postmaster@nds.com> and delete it from your system as
well as any copies.
> The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for
> employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not
> print this e-mail unless necessary.
>
> NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18
> 4EX, United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered
> no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603 8808 40-00
>
>
**************************************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users