[Boston.pm] testing the quality of unit tests

http://www.sdtimes.com/fullcolumn/column-20070615-02.html

   The ability to run unit tests as part of the integrity validation of
   the codebase is, of course, an important feature. However, there is
   little that can tell the developer or the manager whether the tests
   are any good. Even high levels of code coverage are no proxy for
   test quality (quantity, yes - but not quality).

   One tool that helps identify weaknesses in unit test coverage is
   Jester (jester.sourceforge.net). It represents a malicious idea that
   beneficially mutilates your code. Once your code runs JUnit tests
   cleanly, Jester will change one meaningful thing in your code,
   recompile it and rerun your unit tests. If the tests still run
   cleanly, Jester points out that a unit test is needed. If the tests
   fail, Jester moves on to another tweak. Given a long enough run,
   Jester will find lots of seams in your code that are not covered by
   tests. This will enable you to spot naked code that was not tested
   for an unforeseen eventuality. If your code can stand up to multiple
   Jester runs, chances are good you’re correctly testing all the
   behaviors you need to be checking. Versions of Jester exist for
   Python (Pester) and C# (Nester).

http://jester.sourceforge.net/

Too bad it isn't available for Perl. (Some Perl old timers seem to 
dismiss concerns over eroding market share, but this is one of the real 
world examples of where Perl suffers as a result of declining interest.)

  -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/