[Sugar-devel] Requiring test coverage for new code

[Simon Schampijer]

How does the test coverage looks like? Human testing or automated tests?

Thanks,
    Simon

On 05/17/2013 03:13 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Simon, Manuel,
>
> any feedback about this? I see a few possible levels
>
> 1 Everything, bugfixes included
> 2 Every feature patch
> 3 Every patch to the new html/javascript code
> 4 Nothing, leave it to the contributor willingness
>
> I'm opposed to 4 :) I tend to think we should do 2, because a lot of new
> code is landing and the more code without tests we need to maintain the
> worst the quality situation will get. I guess 3 would also be a possibility
> if we want to try it out and increase gradually.
>
>
> On 13 May 2013 00:28, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to propose to make it a requirement, enforced by code reviews, to
>> provide good test coverage when submitting new code. It will raise the bar
>> for contributions but it's essential if we want to improve quality (and I
>> think we have to). I can add a paragraph about it to sugar-docs, if we have
>> consensus.
>>
>> A few details:
>>
>> * What to do with patches which have been already submitted? I think it
>> really depends on the patch, so I'd leave it to the reviewer discretion.
>> * Should this apply to bug fixes? I tend to think it should, we are not in
>> a particularly active bug fixing period now, so it's a good time to start
>> with those too.
>> * Cannot apply to javascript code yet, because the infra is not in place.
>> Though writing the infra is on the short time priorities, so this should
>> change soon.
>> * Cannot apply to activities because we are missing infra bits. It would
>> not be too hard to add them, but I think we should focus on html activities
>> now.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Narvaez
>>
>>
>
>