[SystemSafety] MC/DC coverage assumptions

[Dewi Daniels]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 at 16:36, Derek M Jones <derek at knosof.co.uk> wrote:

> This sounds like bad user interface design.  Users could be
> led to believe the numbers are for MC/DC, when in fact they need
> to merge in other values to get this data.
>

That's only true if you're trying to measure percentage coverage. When
following DO-178C, we're only interested in whether we can justify any gaps
in coverage. So in your example where a decision with a single condition
had only taken one outcome, the gap in decision coverage would have to be
resolved as explained by Tom Ferrell. There's no compelling reason for the
tool to point out the same gap in MC/DC, because the resolution would be
the same.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20180301/dba37ddd/attachment.html>