If defect fixes include unit tests, some legacy code can be covered. -----Original Message----- From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 6:18 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] QA/Testing focus on 4.1
From: David Nalley [da...@gnsa.us] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 5:17 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] QA/Testing focus on 4.1 > is useful. (But of course, having a set of tests to confirm that the > refactoring didn't break anything should be a prerequisite to making > that sort of change! I was thinking the same thing when reading Chiradeeps review on Min's patch. We should start with a set of tests that pass cleanly with the current code before trying changes. > Anyone have other ideas about how to prioritize unit test writing? I think the idea above is good - as well as requiring it for any refactoring in general. Animesh> For prioritizing unit test writing, all new code should have good unit test coverage. Full unit test coverage is possible if we adopt TDD. For legacy code we should guard it with unit test overtime based on how critical the code is for best ROI. Whenver we refactor or change legacy code we should try to put as much unit test as possible. --David
