Don't get me wrong, code coverage is a useful tool, but you need to understand what it is telling you if you aren't going to allow it to lull you into a false sense of security.
This surprises some people at first:
Code coverage does not tell you what has been tested
Code coverage tells you what code has been executed by the tests, it does not tell you that the code has run as expected. As it tells you what code has been executed the inverse is also true, it tells you what code hasn't been executed. Code that hasn't been executed you can be sure hasn't been tested.
What can be said is:
Code coverage tells you what certainly isn't tested.
Code coverage tells you at best how much of the code is tested.
Code coverage of 80% doesn't mean 80% of your code is tested, it means at least 20% of your code isn't tested.
A simple example to demonstrate this. A very simple Calculator class which can perform basic arithmetic, its tests and the coverage report.
-
package uk.co.paulmoser.examples.codecoverage;
-
-
public class Calculator {
-
-
public int add(int a, int b) {
-
return a + b;
-
}
-
-
public int subtract(int a, int b) {
-
return a - b;
-
}
-
-
public int multiply(int a, int b) {
-
return a + b;
-
}
-
-
public int divide(int a, int b) {
-
return a / b;
-
}
-
-
}
-
package uk.co.paulmoser.examples.codecoverage;
-
-
import org.junit.Test;
-
-
import static org.junit.Assert.assertThat;
-
import static org.hamcrest.CoreMatchers.*;
-
-
public class CalculatorTest {
-
-
private Calculator calculator = new Calculator();
-
-
@Test
-
public void addsTwoNumbers() {
-
assertThat(calculator.add(2, 2), is(4));
-
}
-
-
@Test
-
public void multipliesTwoNumbers() {
-
assertThat(calculator.multiply(2, 2), is(4));
-
}
-
-
@Test
-
public void dividesTwoNumbers() {
-
calculator.divide(5, 2);
-
}
-
}
The coverage report shows that the subtract() method isn't covered, and checking the tests there are no tests for that method. It's true that at least 20% of our code isn't tested but if we assume that the other 80% works fine as it is covered then we could be in for a nasty surprise in the future.
The coverage report shows that the divide() method is covered and the dividesTwoNumbers() test does indeed execute it, however the test makes no assertions about what the behaviour of the method, the code may or may not function correctly. Whilst the code does divide one number by another it is not clear whether it functions as expected, it is performing integer arithmetic, did the author expect the result of 5/2 to be 2, rather than 2.5?
It's not just missing assertions that mean that covered code isn't correctly functioning tested code. The code can be wrong or the test could be wrong and the test will still pass. There is a test for multiplication that does check for a correct result, however because of an unfortunate choice of test data the test still passes despite the multiple() method incorrectly returning the sum of the two parameters rather than the product.
From over coverage of 80% it seems that only 40% is actually working correctly, the remainder is either untested, faulty or behaves ambiguously. Whilst the Calculator is a simple class and it's fairly obvious where omissions and mistakes are in more complex classes if can be far less clear.
Code coverage also means nothing with regards to the quality of the tests, how readable, maintainable and communicative they are, but that's another subject.
