On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 20:59 +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> ----- "Ken McDonell" <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I've been doing some QA coverage analysis, starting with libpcp and
> > was
> > more than a little surprised to find that the following routines have
> > ZERO coverage across all the tests in the QA suite:
> >
> > ...
> > who can point to QA test code that I've overlooked, or any volunteer
> > willing to write the missing QA test cases so these routines are
> > tested,
> > which seems a minimal precondition for them remaining in the library.
>
> Happy to see 'em go, I never know if I'm accidentally breaking these when
> making changes in their proximity - they can always come back if/when there
> is a genuine use case (and some tests).
OK, I am proposing to guard the relevant routines by #ifdef's that will
not be defined in the default build. After this settles in and if there
are still no objections, we can remove the source code.
|