Re: [ANN] Lua 5.3.2 (rc2) now available

[Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Nagaev Boris <bnagaev@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Roberto Ierusalimschy
> <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
>> The "basic tests" (with _U=1) are far from minimal. They already cover a
>> lot of ground (I would guess its converage is >90%),
>
> Is test coverage measured with some tool? Is it lines-of-code coverage
> or branch coverage? I would like to read 10% (or 1%) of non-covered
> code (and maybe cover it or find bugs in it). Lua's code is too small
> not to be covered 100.0%.
>
>> We prefer to avoid everybody running the tests, because in the end it
>> generates more noise than signal. (That is why they are not bundled in
>> the Lua tarball.)
>
> I do not understand this point. More testers => more errors found. If
> tests are too complicated, maybe it is time to reorganize them using
> Busted [1].
>
> [1] http://olivinelabs.com/busted/
>
> --
>
>
> Best regards,
> Boris Nagaev
>

I found Roberto's talk on how they test Lua to be very interesting. If
you have any interest in the stability of Lua or questions about
rigor, then this will prove interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU5QNKpATxk&list=PL1plv7yZjDaPC6BeS8N2b1gQzmGLYGhwq&index=5


-Andrew