How to do Code Coverage testing in Xcode while using instrument for iOS automation?
Is there any tool that display the percentage of the automation code coverage.
Also I would like to know how it can be done when the test cases are written only for functionality.
no there isnt. you could include logs and count the number of logs printed vs. the total number of logs.... that would work but is a lot of manual work
Related
We do have an pretty old code base, where at the moment everything is handled within (frontend/backend) - to improve our quality, we setup a multilanguage project, now instead of analyzing just Java, we also analyse SCSS, HTML, JS, Xml,...
Well so far everything is running smooth, and working as expected, I am just curious if there is a way to show "coverage per language"? We do have a lot of Java Tests but no JavaScript tests, and it would be pretty neat, to have an overview of "how much tested" the different languages are!
There is also some kind of business value related to this! As the Coverage is now not separated into Integration and Unit tests, it is now also factoring the coverage of the JavaScript files into the overall coverage -> which we can argument easily, but we lose some kind of comparability :D
This is not available synthetically within SonarQube. If it's really important to you, you'll need to use the web services to pull the data and do the calculations externally.
I used a tool that would help me improve test coverage by checking that the lines of the file that I am testing actually mattered to the spec.
It was done by disabling each line in the tested file and seeing if any tests failed. If no tests failed after a line was disabled, it was considered not covered.
I can't seem to find it today, maybe it was in a different language. Any ideas?
Found it, its called Mutation testing:
Mutation testing is not an alternative to line coverage. While line coverage asks “what percentage of our code is run by our tests,” mutation testing asks “what code can I change without breaking your tests?” Mutation testing tools answer this question by applying and testing small modifications to your application.
Article:
https://blog.blockscore.com/how-to-write-better-code-using-mutation-testing/
RailsConf talk: http://confreaks.tv/videos/railsconf2014-mutation-testing-with-mutant
I have two questions. My first question is: Do applications exist which measure the coverage of GUI testing for web applications (not code, but the coverage of GUI components on web page)?
My second question is:
Is GUI testing with Selenium for example necessary if we have tests for javascript as well?
Thank you in advance.
You can write your custom application to find all dom elements using http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_htmldom_elements.asp, store this in some place and after completing your test automation framework run this utility to make sure that none of the elements are missing.
GUI test is required to make sure that all your integration points b/w several backend API are working. Also we will be sure that non of the UI elements are break over UI and all your business use cases are working as expected. Mostly UI testing is done for Acceptance Testing and we can show to the customer that all there use cases are working as expected. Later in the next release you can make sure that you are not breaking any UI code. UI testing gives us confidence while releasing to end users.
I am using XCode Version 7.1 (7B91b) on my local MAC.
And testing my app on the Simulator iPhone 6 (iOS9).
I have created Unit tests for my app, then I found that the code coverage was about 34%. I decided to create UI tests to increase the code coverage. But unfortunately, the code coverage did not increase.
I made a simple trial,
create a project with NavBarContrl, FirstTabelViewController & SecondTableViewController, keep the unit tests as default
Leave unit tests, add one record in UI Tests to navigate from first table view controller to the second. (I am expecting that Both First/Second Table View Controllers must be highlighted in the final Code Coverage report, right?)
Make sure code coverage is enabled
Run Tests then check code coverage, it is 40%
Take a look on the attached code coverage result, Second View Controller coverage is zero !! although when I was watching the simulator, it did navigate from first view controller to the second one. It can't be zero.
is there anything that I m missing here?
I tried to search in Apple official Documentation but cant find any explicit contradiction to have code coverage with UI Testing, any suggestions?
Make sure you have enabled Debug Executable in Test section in your Scheme settings.
It appears that without this option Xcode unable to gather coverage data.
Microsoft has a lot of stuff in there, but I'm wondering what features of Visual Studio Team System people really like and really use.
I'm specifically thinking about Team System as opposed to plain old Visual Studio.
What makes it worth the price?
I use the Development version of VSTS2005 and evaluating 2008. My top picks:
Profiler
Coding guidelines -- rules enforcement part
My favorite
Profiler
Integrated Testing Environment: I know a lot of people prefer other test frameworks but having the integration is just sweet.
FxCop
Some of the best features come from adding Team Foundation Server:
Continuous integration builds can be set up to run unit tests on every build
Code coverage figures can be gathered based on the unit test run
Reports of build success, unit test success, code coverage %, etc. can be produced daily
Code check-in can mark a work item (bug report) fixed, or can start the workflow to do so
It not only gives the developers a better idea what's going on with their code, and of how to fix it (unit tests, code coverage, code analysis), it also gives Management an overall picture of the same, without having to come around and bug the developers individually.
I like the line-by-line blame, profiler (as mentioned), but more importantly, I like the reports it produces, such as defect rates over time.
However, even though there are plenty of features that I like, I certainly don't think it provides good value for money.