June 21, 2013 Re: Raising the bar on Phobos unittest coverage | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to qznc | 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 Re: Raising the bar on Phobos unittest coverage | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jacob Carlborg | 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 Re: Raising the bar on Phobos unittest coverage | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Joseph Rushton Wakeling | 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 Re: Raising the bar on Phobos unittest coverage | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | 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 Re: Raising the bar on Phobos unittest coverage | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Joseph Rushton Wakeling | 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 Re: Raising the bar on Phobos unittest coverage | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jacob Carlborg | 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 Re: Raising the bar on Phobos unittest coverage | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Joseph Rushton Wakeling | 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 |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation