[Sugar-devel] Requiring test coverage for new code

[Gonzalo Odiard]

May be I am old fashion, but requesting mandatory automated tests for all
the changes is not a good idea.
We are a small team. And we don't have a problem of regressions.
May be, with the new  web api, with the many changes we will have in the
next months,
is a good idea.

Gonzalo


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>wrote:

> Oh sorry, I suppose I should have made that clear :) I'm talking about
> automated tests, we have a few examples of them in the tree
>
> https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-toolkit-gtk3/tree/master/tests
> https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/tree/master/tests
> https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-build/tree/master/tests
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2013 15:16, 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20130517/26cc395d/attachment-0001.html>