June 21, 2013
On 2013-06-21 11:13, qznc wrote:

> Took that is a chance to become a contributor to Phobos and submitted a
> pull request [0]. Am I supposed to file something in Bugzilla or just
> wait for someone to look at my request?

A matching bugzilla is always a good idea. The changelog is built from that.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
June 21, 2013
On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 10:11:44 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-06-21 11:13, qznc wrote:
>
>> Took that is a chance to become a contributor to Phobos and submitted a
>> pull request [0]. Am I supposed to file something in Bugzilla or just
>> wait for someone to look at my request?
>
> A matching bugzilla is always a good idea. The changelog is built from that.

Additional tests do not affect D users, though, so it's not as interesting to have on the changelog as actual fixes or enhancements.
June 21, 2013
On 6/21/2013 2:26 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> I think a minimum acceptable threshold is necessary but not sufficient -- say
> your minimum code coverage is 85%, it's still most likely unacceptable if your
> coverage drops (say) from 92% to 87%.

If your minimum acceptable coverage is 92%, why list it as 85%? ????


> Anyway, the main benefit I see in printing the percentages isn't for testing
> purposes (though it's handy) but in advertising the existence and usefulness of
> code coverage analysis, and giving developers a nudge as to where and what to
> work on :-)

The main point of the bar is so there's an automated check for when it drops. You don't have to manually look, which will never happen.

June 21, 2013
On 06/21/2013 09:42 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> If your minimum acceptable coverage is 92%, why list it as 85%? ????

I wasn't sure if you might allow some margin to allow for the fact that introducing new functionality might introduce a drop in overall code coverage (I found not all "failures" of code coverage are avoidable and not all of them are real failures).

> The main point of the bar is so there's an automated check for when it drops. You don't have to manually look, which will never happen.

I just know that if every time I build Phobos I get a report that mentions that std.somemodule has only 53% code coverage, I might start to feel an obligation to do something about that. ;-)

June 22, 2013
On 2013-06-22 00:29, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:

> I just know that if every time I build Phobos I get a report that mentions that
> std.somemodule has only 53% code coverage, I might start to feel an obligation
> to do something about that. ;-)

Having both doesn't hurt.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
June 22, 2013
On 06/22/2013 10:52 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Having both doesn't hurt.

Wasn't arguing against having the minimum coverage bar, I think it's a good idea. :-)

I did misinterpret it a bit, though, as being a common minimum applied to all modules, not a per-module bar.
June 22, 2013
On 2013-06-22 13:01, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:

> I did misinterpret it a bit, though, as being a common minimum applied to all
> modules, not a per-module bar.

It's per module and should be raised if the coverage is increased.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
1 2 3 4
Next ›   Last »