[Sugar-devel] Requiring test coverage for new code

[Daniel Narvaez]

I'm happy to provide guidance on this (for as much time free time I have
available for sugar).


On 17 May 2013 15:23, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to adding tests to all new features, but some guidance on what
> these tests should look like is necessary.
>
> -walter
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Simon Schampijer <simon at schampijer.de>
> wrote:
> > 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>



-- 
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20130517/4f9769b2/attachment.html>