Talk:Functional coverage tree: Difference between revisions
m
→Tightening up the description of the coverage calculation ?
m (→Weighted sums: Better when child values are different) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 44:
I did not use the above, but thought I should generate it. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 20:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
: But I've used it subsequently in the Python class-based version as I wanted the task to focus more on the calculations in the tree and the display of output in textual form that might normally be done in something like this [http://ludo.cubicphuse.nl/jquery-treetable/#examples treetable] or this [http://mleibman.github.io/SlickGrid/examples/example5-collapsing.html treetable]. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 07:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
===Weighted sums===
Line 79 ⟶ 80:
86.0
>>> </lang>
===Tightening up the description of the coverage calculation ?===
The given formulation of the coverage values of nodes sounds like a statement about '''all''' nodes in the tree, but is in fact, of course, valid only for a '''minority''' of them.
(It's valid for those which have children – but the majority are leaf nodes, with coverage values which are direct and supplied rather than computed. If we took the task description literally, the coverage value of all leaf nodes, and hence of all parent nodes too, would be zero, or perhaps just undefined).
Perhaps worth tightening up that sentence, or adding one to cover the majority case, in which the number of children is zero ? [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 18:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
| |||