Re: Thinking about test coverage

> It's not just about F&O, of course...

Of course. I just wanted to start somewhere, partly to see if I could make sense of it.

> I've cross-linked many of the entries in changes.xml to the PR number, and going forward I suggest we aim to use the covers40 attribute to point directly to the PR rather than to an entry in changes.xml.

Yes, I think that makes sense. Coordinating multiple files increases the risk of error.

> One of the problems of course is that there may be one or two tests for a feature, but not enough to consider it tested. For example invisible-xml has a token 3 or 4 tests at the moment just so you get an error if it's not implemented at all.

Also true.

> We've probably not been removing the "tests needed" labels in Github when we consider a feature sufficiently tested.

Indeed.

> And of course there's the XSLT test suite as well.

Right. A whole different kettle of fish.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh
Saxonica