[Sugar-devel] Requiring test coverage for new code

[Manuel Quiñones]

Sorry for not answering yet, I was in doubt.because of the "raising
the bar" consequence.

I really missed unit-testings in Sugar when the GTK3 port was made.  I
considered starting doing them at that time, but looked like a lot of
work.  Adding testing to an already written system can be a pain.  But
if we progressively do it, that would be great.

So I vote for 2.

And for the html sugar, we should do full coverage testing.


2013/5/17 Gonzalo Odiard <gonzalo at laptop.org>:
> 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
>>
>



-- 
.. manuq ..