<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Developer Testing: Research in Testing</title>
<link>http://www.developertesting.com/</link>
<description>Developer Testing - A place to gain and share knowledge.</description>
<copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:12:30 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.16</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

" lastn="15">
<item>
<title>Visualizing Complexity and Coverage</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>At <a href="http://www.citconf.com/">CITCON</a> Europe in Brussels last week one of the sessions I enjoyed was on CRAP4J and other metrics for bad code. (I've put <a href="http://www.citconf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Crap4J_and_other_metric_tools">my notes</a> up on the CITCON wiki.) Today Kevin reminded me that <a href="http://www.atlassian.com/software/clover/">Clover</a> has a similar metric for identifying risky code, a tag cloud that uses complexity to size the tag and the coverage level to color it. They have posted a sample using Lucene <a href="http://downloads.atlassian.com/software/clover/samples/lucene/project-risks.html">here</a>. This is a pretty neat looking approach... but honestly? I don't really like it.<br />
</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.developertesting.com/archives/month200710/20071025-VisualizingComplexityAndCoverage.html</link>
<guid>http://www.developertesting.com/archives/month200710/20071025-VisualizingComplexityAndCoverage.html</guid>
<category>Jeffrey Fredrick</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:12:30 -0800</pubDate>

</item>


</channel>
</rss>