> There's a good reason, because it's my almost always hiding a bug
There's another good reason -- by definition, it's impossible to write a test case with full decision coverage if some of the decisions are themselves impossible.
There's another good reason -- by definition, it's impossible to write a test case with full decision coverage if some of the decisions are themselves impossible.
I'm a huge proponent that branch coverage is way more important than just statement coverage, because as you mentioned, it's way easier to miss these types of bugs just by getting 100% statement coverage.
Put another way, you can only get 100% statement coverage if every 'then' and 'else' branch is taken, so 100% statement coverage and 100% branch coverage seems to be saying the same thing I think a misunderstanding you, an explanation would be helpful, thanks.
if (foo() || bar()) {
a();
} else {
b();
}
Edit: The above isn't a correct example, because statement coverage will not hit `b()` if `foo()` is tautological. Still, you can see the point -- there's a difference between decision coverage and statement coverage.