<div dir="ltr">I'm happy to provide guidance on this (for as much time free time I have available for sugar). </div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On 17 May 2013 15:23, Walter Bender <<a href="mailto:walter.bender@gmail.com" target="_blank">walter.bender@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">+1 to adding tests to all new features, but some guidance on what these tests should look like is necessary. -walter <div><div class="h5"> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Simon Schampijer <<a href="mailto:simon@schampijer.de">simon@schampijer.de</a>> 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 <<a href="mailto:dwnarvaez@gmail.com">dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> > </div></div>> _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > <a href="mailto:Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org">Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a> > <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a> -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs <a href="http://www.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank">http://www.sugarlabs.org</a> </blockquote></div> -- Daniel Narvaez </div>