"Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries / REMOVEacm.org> wrote in message
news:1787152FC8B32AA0.90D834FF9F103052.B05359FF52313A75 / lp.airnews.net...
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
> brangdon / cix.co.uk (Dave Harris) wrote:
>
> >
> >I mostly agree with this, and it bothers me that XP advocates don't seem
> >to pay much attention to coverage tools.
>
> The short reason, and I don't mean it to be curt, is that we are
> paying attention to defect detections, not to coverage. When defects
> slip through the net, we improve the net.

Don't you kind of have a chicken and an egg situation here. Can't
observe a defect that slips thru the net without either conducting
an observation (aka test) or doing a code analysis. As near as I
can tell analysis only occurs when a defect is detected or
someone declares a need for a refactoring.

> Coverage is interesting, and
> some XP teams are using it. I think it's a good tool for learning how
> to test. In my opinion,  it's secondary to the goal of producing code
> that is [sufficiently] defect-free.
>
> Ronald E Jeffries
> http://www.XProgramming.com
> http://www.objectmentor.com