Subject: Re: Coverage API requirements
From: Bassam Tabbara (bassam@novas.com)
Date: Mon Aug 19 2002 - 18:08:14 PDT
Joao Geada wrote:
[...]
> > 2) coverage and assertions: in the long term, I am a proponent of
> > functional coverage, for which I believe assertions can be of great
> > help. In your requirements, I would therefore emphasize point 1) even
> > more: not only should the API be very similar for different kinds of
> > coverage, but could we make it independent of the underlying coverage
> > metrics? This way, I could query coverage results from any coverage
> > tool, whether it is line coverage, FSM coverage, or some new functional
> > coverage metric that we didn't even think of at the time this standard
> > was defined.
>
> Assertion coverage should definitely be part of the minimum coverage types
> listed in section 2. I was an oversight not to have included it.
> Add item 2.6- assertion coverage
Great, I was thinking about whether "condition" covers "assertion
coverage" :-). BTW, do we need to add "[temporal] expression coverage"
(one or 2 reqs), or is this covered in "assertion coverage" (may be
implicitly but let's be explicit ?).
-Bassam.
-- Dr. Bassam Tabbara Technical Manager, R&DNovas Software, Inc. bassam@novas.com (408) 467-7893
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Aug 19 2002 - 18:14:55 PDT