Yes, there's an override option in the proposal below. It'll still give a warning on 'gcl change', but that's harmless. - Pam
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Ben Goodger (Google) <[email protected]>wrote: > > I think you also need a way to override this in some instances, since > there are methods (especially in views/ and the UI) for which there is > no simple way to "verify" correctness of an implementation in code - > e.g. a function that paints a series of bitmaps at specific locations. > (Nor would we really want to invest in one, since visual designs > evolve continuously over time). > > -Ben > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Pam Greene <[email protected]> wrote: > > We don't have very good unit test coverage (in the broad sense, including > > ui_tests, test_shell_tests, etc.) for our code. We've always had a > policy > > that any new code had to have an associated test, but historically we've > > been really bad about enforcing it. > > > > As a way to help contributors and reviewers remember to add tests, here's > a > > proposal to have gcl report when they are (or might be) missing. It's a > > very rough guess now, and will probably need some refinement as we see > what > > it misses and where its false positives are too annoying. > > > > What changes might need tests? > > > > Any new source file (.cc, .cpp, .m, or .mm), or > > Any new method added to a source or header (.h file > > > > A new method is identified by a flush-left non-comment line that has ( > > somewhere before the next flush-left line and either ends with { or has { > at > > the start of the next flush-left line. > > > > What counts as a test? > > > > Any change to any code file whose name ends in test.* or tests.* > > > > This is very rough, but at least it shows that the contributor thought > about > > testing when making the patch > > > > What do we do if we don't find a test? > > > > On 'gcl change', report a warning to the user > > On 'gcl upload', add a warning to the change description so the reviewer > > sees it too > > > > Add an option to override this > > > > Future possibilities > > > > Is it worth restricting the check to only public or protected methods? > > Since any "real" change ought to either fix a bug or add a feature that > > should be tested, warn whenever there are no changes to any tests > (including > > layout tests) or a test_lists file, even when no source files or methods > > were added. Alas, this is probably not feasible since we don't keep > layout > > tests in the same repository > > Rather than adding a warning to the change description, it'd be nice to > have > > a separate warning in the review app, so it showed up no matter what and > the > > path author didn't have to override anything. But since we want the > warning > > in client-side 'gcl change' anyway, for now we'll keep it simple and > trust > > people. > > > > Comments and volunteers welcome. > > - Pam > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
