[Sugar-devel] Requiring test coverage for new code

[Walter Bender]

+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