You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 44.199.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Blablubbs‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 12:56, 12 May 2024.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪AntiCompositeNumber‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: Visit the FAQ if you are affected .
- Start of block: 13:55, 18 August 2022
- Expiry of block: 13:55, 18 May 2025
Your current IP address is 44.199.189.47. The blocked range is 44.199.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((Short description|Metric for source code testing))
((About|coverage based on source code|coverage based on requirements|Test coverage))
((Program execution))

In [[software engineering]], '''code coverage''', also called '''test coverage''', is a percentage measure of the degree to which the [[source code]] of a [[computer program|program]] is executed when a particular [[test suite]] is run. A program with high test coverage has more of its source code executed during testing, which suggests it has a lower chance of containing undetected [[software bug]]s compared to a program with low test coverage.<ref name="Brader, 2013">((cite book|last1=Brader|first1=Larry|last2=Hilliker|first2=Howie|last3=Wills|first3=Alan|title=Testing for Continuous Delivery with Visual Studio 2012|date=March 2, 2013|publisher=Microsoft|isbn=978-1621140184|page=30|url=https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj159344.aspx|access-date=16 June 2016|chapter=Chapter 2 Unit Testing: Testing the Inside))</ref><ref name="Williams 2003">((cite web|last1=Williams|first1=Laurie|author1-link=Laurie Williams (software engineer)|last2=Smith|first2=Ben|last3=Heckman|first3=Sarah|title=Test Coverage with EclEmma|url=http://realsearchgroup.org/SEMaterials/tutorials/eclemma|website=Open Seminar Software Engineering|publisher=North Carolina State University|access-date=16 June 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160314023040/http://realsearchgroup.org/SEMaterials/tutorials/eclemma/|archive-date=14 March 2016|url-status=dead))</ref> Many different metrics can be used to calculate test coverage. Some of the most basic are the percentage of program [[subroutine]]s and the percentage of program [[statement (computer science)|statements]] called during execution of the test suite.

Code coverage was among the first methods invented for systematic [[software testing]]. The first published reference was by Miller and Maloney in ''[[Communications of the ACM]]'', in 1963.<ref>((cite journal
 | author       = Joan C. Miller, Clifford J. Maloney
 | title        = Systematic mistake analysis of digital computer programs
 | journal      = [[Communications of the ACM]]
 | volume       = 6
 | issue        = 2
 |date=February 1963
 | publisher    = [[Association for Computing Machinery|ACM]]
 | location     = New York, NY, USA
 | issn         = 0001-0782
 | pages        = 58–63
 | doi          = 10.1145/366246.366248
| doi-access= free
 ))</ref>

== Coverage criteria ==
To measure what percentage of code has been executed by a [[test suite]], one or more ''coverage criteria'' are used. These are usually defined as rules or requirements, which a test suite must satisfy.<ref>((cite book | author=Paul Ammann, Jeff Offutt | title=Introduction to Software Testing |publisher=Cambridge University Press| year=2013))</ref>

=== Basic coverage criteria ===
There are a number of coverage criteria, but the main ones are:<ref>((cite book | author=Glenford J. Myers | title=The Art of Software Testing, 2nd edition |publisher=Wiley | year=2004| isbn=0-471-46912-2))</ref>
* '''Function coverage'''((snd))has each function (or [[subroutine]]) in the program been called?
* '''Statement coverage'''((snd))has each [[statement (computer science)|statement]] in the program been executed?
* '''Edge coverage'''((snd))has every [[Graph theory|edge]] in the [[control-flow graph]] been executed?
** '''Branch coverage'''((snd))has each branch (also called the [[DD-path]]) of each control structure (such as in [[Conditional (programming)|''if'' and ''case'' statements]]) been executed? For example, given an ''if'' statement, have both the ''true'' and ''false'' branches been executed? (This is a subset of edge coverage'''.''')
* '''Condition coverage'''((snd))has each Boolean sub-expression evaluated both to true and false? (Also called predicate coverage.)

For example, consider the following [[C (programming language)|C]] function:
<syntaxhighlight lang="cpp">
int foo (int x, int y)
{
    int z = 0;
    if ((x > 0) && (y > 0))
    {
        z = x;
    }
    return z;
}
</syntaxhighlight>

Assume this function is a part of some bigger program and this program was run with some test suite. 
* ''Function coverage'' will be satisfied if, during this execution, the function <code>foo</code> was called at least once.
* ''Statement coverage'' for this function will be satisfied if it was called for example as <code>foo(1,1)</code>, because in this case, every line in the function would be executed—including <code>z = x;</code>.
* ''Branch coverage'' will be satisfied by tests calling <code>foo(1,1)</code> and <code>foo(0,1)</code> because, in the first case, both <code>if</code> conditions are met and <code>z = x;</code> is executed, while in the second case, the first condition, <code>(x>0)</code>, is not satisfied, which prevents the execution of <code>z = x;</code>.  
* ''Condition coverage'' will be satisfied with tests that call <code>foo(1,0)</code>, <code>foo(0,1)</code>, and <code>foo(1,1)</code>. These are necessary because in the first case, <code>(x>0)</code> is evaluated to <code>true</code>, while in the second, it is evaluated to <code>false</code>. At the same time, the first case makes <code>(y>0)</code> <code>false</code>, the second case does not evaluate <code>(y>0)</code> (because of the lazy-evaluation of the boolean operator), the third case makes it <code>true</code>.

In programming languages that do not perform [[short-circuit evaluation]], condition coverage does not necessarily imply branch coverage. For example, consider the following [[Pascal (programming language)|Pascal]] code fragment:
<syntaxhighlight lang="pascal">
if a and b then
</syntaxhighlight>
Condition coverage can be satisfied by two tests:
* <code>a=true</code>, <code>b=false</code>
* <code>a=false</code>, <code>b=true</code>
However, this set of tests does not satisfy branch coverage since neither case will meet the <code>if</code> condition.

[[Fault injection]] may be necessary to ensure that all conditions and branches of [[exception handling|exception-handling]] code have adequate coverage during testing.

=== Modified condition/decision coverage ===
((Main|Modified condition/decision coverage))
A combination of function coverage and branch coverage is sometimes also called '''decision coverage'''. This criterion requires that every [[Entry and exit points|point of entry and exit]] in the program has been invoked at least once, and every decision in the program has taken on all possible outcomes at least once. In this context, the decision is a [[boolean expression]] comprising conditions and zero or more boolean operators. This definition is not the same as branch coverage,<ref name ="Position Paper CAST10">Position Paper CAST-10 (June 2002). ''[http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/air_software/cast/cast_papers/media/cast-10.pdf What is a "Decision" in Application of Modified Condition/Decision Coverage (MC/DC) and Decision Coverage (DC)?]''</ref> however, the term ''decision coverage'' is sometimes used as a synonym for it.<ref name="mathworks">MathWorks. ''[http://www.mathworks.com/help/slvnv/ug/types-of-model-coverage.html Types of Model Coverage.]''</ref>

'''Condition/decision coverage''' requires that both decision and condition coverage be satisfied. However, for [[safety-critical]] applications (such as [[avionics software]]) it is often required that '''modified condition/decision coverage (MC/DC)''' be satisfied. This criterion extends condition/decision criteria with requirements that each condition should affect the decision outcome independently.

For example, consider the following code:
<syntaxhighlight lang="pascal">
if (a or b) and c then
</syntaxhighlight>
The condition/decision criteria will be satisfied by the following set of tests:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! a || b || c
|-
| true || true || true
|-
| false || false || false
|}

However, the above tests set will not satisfy modified condition/decision coverage, since in the first test, the value of 'b' and in the second test the value of 'c' would not influence the output. So, the following test set is needed to satisfy MC/DC:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! a || b || c
|-
| false || true || '''false'''
|-
| false || '''true''' || '''true'''
|-
| '''false''' || '''false''' || true
|-
| '''true''' || false || '''true'''
|}

=== Multiple condition coverage ===
This criterion requires that all combinations of conditions inside each decision are tested. For example, the code fragment from the previous section will require eight tests:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! a || b || c
|-
| false || false || false
|-
| false || false || true
|-
| false || true || false
|-
| false || true || true
|-
| true || false || false
|-
| true || false || true
|-
| true || true || false
|-
| true || true || true
|}

=== Parameter value coverage ===
'''Parameter value coverage''' (PVC) requires that in a method taking parameters, all the common values for such parameters be considered. The idea is that all common possible values for a parameter are tested.<ref>((cite web| url = http://www.rhyous.com/2012/05/08/unit-testing-with-parameter-value-coverage-pvc/| title = Unit Testing with Parameter Value Coverage (PVC)))</ref> For example, common values for a string are: 1) [[Null object|null]], 2) empty, 3) whitespace (space, tabs, newline), 4) valid string, 5) invalid string, 6) single-byte string, 7) double-byte string. It may also be appropriate to use very long strings. Failure to test each possible parameter value may result in a bug. Testing only one of these could result in 100% code coverage as each line is covered, but as only one of seven options are tested, there is only 14.2% PVC.

=== Other coverage criteria ===
There are further coverage criteria, which are used less often:
* '''[[Linear Code Sequence and Jump]] (LCSAJ) coverage''' a.k.a. '''JJ-Path coverage'''((snd)) has every LCSAJ/JJ-path been executed?<ref name="On the relationship between two control-flow coverage criteria: all JJ-paths and MCDC">M. R. Woodward, M. A. Hennell, "On the relationship between two control-flow coverage criteria: all JJ-paths and MCDC", Information and Software Technology 48 (2006) pp. 433-440</ref>
* '''Path coverage'''((snd))Has every possible route through a given part of the code been executed?
* '''Entry/exit coverage'''((snd))Has every possible call and return of the function been executed?
* '''Loop coverage'''((snd))Has every possible loop been executed zero times, once, and more than once?
* '''State coverage'''((snd))Has each state in a [[finite-state machine]] been reached and explored?
* '''Data-flow coverage'''((snd))Has each variable definition and its usage been reached and explored?<ref name="A Survey on Data-Flow Testing">Ting Su, Ke Wu, Weikai Miao, Geguang Pu, Jifeng He, Yuting Chen, and Zhendong Su. "A Survey on Data-Flow Testing". ACM Comput. Surv. 50, 1, Article 5 (March 2017), 35 pages.</ref>

[[Safety-critical]] or [[Dependability|dependable]] applications are often required to demonstrate 100% of some form of test coverage.
For example, the [[European Cooperation for Space Standardization|ECSS]]-E-ST-40C standard demands 100% statement and decision coverage for two out of four different criticality levels; for the other ones, target coverage values are up to negotiation between supplier and customer.<ref name="ECSS-E-ST-40C">ECSS-E-ST-40C: Space engineering - Software. ECSS Secretariat, ESA-ESTEC. March, 2009</ref>
However, setting specific target values - and, in particular, 100% - has been criticized by practitioners for various reasons (cf.<ref name="is 100 percent reasonable">C. Prause, J. Werner, K. Hornig, S. Bosecker, M. Kuhrmann (2017): ''[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marco_Kuhrmann/publication/319141355_Is_100_Test_Coverage_a_Reasonable_Requirement_Lessons_Learned_from_a_Space_Software_Project/links/599467faaca272ec9087f82a/Is-100-Test-Coverage-a-Reasonable-Requirement-Lessons-Learned-from-a-Space-Software-Project.pdf Is 100% Test Coverage a Reasonable Requirement? Lessons Learned from a Space Software Project]''. In: PROFES 2017. Springer. Last accessed: 2017-11-17</ref>)
[[Martin Fowler (software engineer)|Martin Fowler]] writes: "I would be suspicious of anything like 100% - it would smell of someone writing tests to make the coverage numbers happy, but not thinking about what they are doing".<ref name="fowler blog">Martin Fowler's blog: [https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TestCoverage.html TestCoverage.] Last accessed: 2017-11-17</ref>

Some of the coverage criteria above are connected. For instance, path coverage implies decision, statement and entry/exit coverage. Decision coverage implies statement coverage, because every statement is part of a branch.

Full path coverage, of the type described above, is usually impractical or impossible. Any module with a succession of <math>n</math> decisions in it can have up to <math>2^n</math> paths within it; loop constructs can result in an infinite number of paths.  Many paths may also be infeasible, in that there is no input to the program under test that can cause that particular path to be executed.  However, a general-purpose algorithm for identifying infeasible paths has been proven to be impossible (such an algorithm could be used to solve the [[halting problem]]).<ref>Dorf, Richard C.: ''Computers, Software Engineering, and Digital Devices'', Chapter 12, pg. 15. CRC Press, 2006. ((ISBN|0-8493-7340-9)), ((ISBN|978-0-8493-7340-4)); via [https://books.google.com/books?id=jykvlTCoksMC&dq=%22infeasible+path%22+%22halting+problem%22&pg=PT386 Google Book Search]</ref> [[Basis path testing]] is for instance a method of achieving complete branch coverage without achieving complete path coverage.<ref name="SrikantShankar2002">((cite book|author1=Y.N. Srikant|author2=Priti Shankar|title=The Compiler Design Handbook: Optimizations and Machine Code Generation|year=2002|publisher=CRC Press|isbn=978-1-4200-4057-9|page=249))</ref>

Methods for practical path coverage testing instead attempt to identify classes of code paths that differ only in the number of loop executions, and to achieve "basis path" coverage the tester must cover all the path classes.((citation needed|date=July 2014))((clarify|date=July 2014))

==In practice==
((more citations needed section|date=February 2015))The target software is built with special options or libraries and run under a controlled environment, to map every executed function to the function points in the source code. This allows testing parts of the target software that are rarely or never accessed under normal conditions, and helps reassure that the most important conditions (function points) have been tested.  The resulting output is then analyzed to see what areas of code have not been exercised and the tests are updated to include these areas as necessary. Combined with other test coverage methods, the aim is to develop a rigorous, yet manageable, set of regression tests.

In implementing test coverage policies within a software development environment, one must consider the following:

*  What are coverage requirements for the end product certification and if so what level of test coverage is required?  The typical level of rigor progression is as follows: Statement, Branch/Decision, [[Modified Condition/Decision Coverage]] (MC/DC), LCSAJ ([[Linear Code Sequence and Jump]])
*  Will coverage be measured against tests that verify requirements levied on the system under test ([[DO-178B]])?
*  Is the object code generated directly traceable to source code statements?  Certain certifications, (i.e. DO-178B Level A) require coverage at the assembly level if this is not the case: "Then, additional verification should be performed on the object code to establish the correctness of such generated code sequences" ([[DO-178B]]) para-6.4.4.2.<ref name="DO-178B" />

Software authors can look at test coverage results to devise additional tests and input or configuration sets to increase the coverage over vital functions. Two common forms of test coverage are statement (or line) coverage and branch (or edge) coverage. Line coverage reports on the execution footprint of testing in terms of which lines of code were executed to complete the test. Edge coverage reports which branches or code decision points were executed to complete the test. They both report a coverage metric, measured as a percentage. The meaning of this depends on what form(s) of coverage have been used, as 67% branch coverage is more comprehensive than 67% statement coverage.

Generally, test coverage tools incur computation and logging in addition to the actual program thereby slowing down the application, so typically this analysis is not done in production.  As one might expect, there are classes of software that cannot be feasibly subjected to these coverage tests, though a degree of coverage mapping can be approximated through analysis rather than direct testing.

There are also some sorts of defects which are affected by such tools. In particular, some [[race condition]]s or similar [[Real-time computing|real time]] sensitive operations can be masked when run under test environments; though conversely, some of these defects may become easier to find as a result of the additional overhead of the testing code.

Most professional software developers use C1 and C2 coverage. C1 stands for statement coverage and C2 for branch or condition coverage. With a combination of C1 and C2, it is possible to cover most statements in a code base. Statement coverage would also cover function coverage with entry and exit, loop, path, state flow, control flow and data flow coverage. With these methods, it is possible to achieve nearly 100% code coverage in most software projects.
<ref>((cite book | author=Boris beizer | title=Software testing techniques, 2nd edition |publisher=Dreamtech press | year=2009| isbn=978-81-7722-260-9))</ref>

==Usage in industry==
Test coverage is one consideration in the safety certification of avionics equipment. The guidelines by which avionics gear is certified by the [[Federal Aviation Administration]] (FAA) is documented in [[DO-178B]]<ref name="DO-178B">RTCA/[[DO-178B]], ''Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics,'' December 1, 1992</ref> and [[DO-178C]].<ref name="DO-178C">RTCA/[[DO-178C]], ''Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics,'' January, 2012.</ref>

Test coverage is also a requirement in part 6 of the automotive safety standard [[ISO 26262]] ''Road Vehicles - Functional Safety''.<ref name="ISO26262part6">((cite book | title =ISO 26262-6:2011(en) Road vehicles -- Functional safety -- Part 6: Product development at the software level | publisher =International Standardization Organization | url =http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=51362))</ref>

==See also==
* [[Cyclomatic complexity]]
* [[Intelligent verification]]
* [[Linear code sequence and jump]]
* [[Modified condition/decision coverage]]
* [[Mutation testing]]
* [[Regression testing]]
* [[Software metric]]
* [[Static program analysis]]
* [[White-box testing]]
* [[Java code coverage tools]]

==References==
((reflist))

((DEFAULTSORT:Code Coverage))
[[Category:Software metrics]]
[[Category:Software testing tools]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Code coverage (edit)
Template:About (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Catalog lookup link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Template:Citation needed (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite book (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite journal (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:Clarify (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Delink (view source) (protected)
Template:Fix (view source) (protected)
Template:Fix-span (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fix/category (view source) (protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:ISBN (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:More citations needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:More citations needed section (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Program execution (edit)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Snd (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Sp (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Spaced en dash (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Template:Yesno-no (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno-yes (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:About (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Catalog lookup link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Check isxn (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:DecodeEncode (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Delink (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:Format link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Labelled list hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Module:Sidebar (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Code coverage.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_coverage"