The problem statement is
A method that has a zero fault that you can write a test suite to that has 100% statement coverage but doesn't find the fault and another test suite that has 100% branch coverage that does reveal the fault?
Here is the method I wrote for the same
public faultyMethod1(int x, int y) {
int X =x;
int Y = y;
if (Y !=0){
Z = X/Y;
} else {
System.out.println("Sorry. That's an DiviDeByZeroException");
}
}
faultyMethod1 (1,2);
faultyMethod1 (2,0);
The above code to achieve test suite that has 100% branch coverage that does reveal the fault"
What about test suite to that has 100% statement coverage but doesn't find the fault ?
Let's make another example...
// The method, according to our imaginary specification, should do:
// return x * y, IF x is less than 2
// return x + y, in any other case
public int doSomething(int x, int y) {
if (x < 2 ) {
return x * x; // this is our bug, it SHOULD be x * y
}
return x + y;
}
Now imagine we have two tests:
assertEquals(0, doSomething( 0, 12) ); // works, as 0 * 0 == 0 * 12
assertEquals(20, doSomething( 10, 10 ) ); // works fine
So, now we have 100% test coverage (because the x < 2 branch has been covered, as well as the other one). But we didn't find the bug, since using zero as value for x hides it (since 0 * something is always 0, y is irrelevant). We would have needed something like this...
assertEquals(12, doSomething( 1, 12) ); // fails, because it will be 1*1 == 1
The same problem can occur for any other situation, including a division by zero. Can't imagine a good example, but I guess you get the basic idea how having a 100% coverage does not mean finding 100% of all bugs. (A cool way to find them would be mutation testing, but that's a pretty advanced topic.)
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With