IMHO, I like the idea in principle, data is important and certainly can help us target some areas where the coverage is low.
So, I think it would be useful to have the report ... but I believe making it mandatory as part of PRs would be too soon. Before making it mandatory, I think we need to adjust the build so it's quicker and easier to run the tests, reduce the test effort by sharing more testing code between the sub-projects and make sure the tests are solid. On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:41 AM Andrea Cosentino <anco...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's all easy in words. The reality is just that we need incremental > builds, but the structure is too complex to be able to have them. > > We can add test coverage but just as weekly or daily report. > > Like jenkins build, except the usual maintainers, nobody will care. > > Il gio 8 ott 2020, 10:38 Marc Carter <drekb...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > It does feel like a failing. For exactly the reason below - smaller leaf > > components (of which there are many) and PRs (which are infinite into > > the future) "get away" with weaker testing because of the weight of > > historic coverage within the core elements. This is entropy at work and > > something a long-lived project might be bothered by. > > > > Have you tried using something like Sandboni to optimise the tests > > executed based on the git commits unique to the PR? Any enforced > > coverage percentage then becomes specific to the tests selected so > > avoids this situation. > > > > Marc > > > > https://github.com/jpmorganchase/sandboni-core > > > > On 08/10/2020 08:59, Omar Al-Safi wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > We have lgtm.com integrated which helps a bit to check from time to > time > > > but not on every PR since the Camel build is complex. However, I think > a > > > weekly coverage report is not a bad idea, at least it would maybe help > a > > > bit. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Omar > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 9:51 AM Maria Arias de Reyna Dominguez < > > > maria...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> In any case, maybe a nightly/weekly code coverage is useful to check > > >> which parts of the code are less "tested" and we should put more > > >> effort on them. Even if we can't do it by PR, it will show some light > > >> on the current status of the code. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 9:30 AM Andrea Cosentino <anco...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>> I don't think it is feasible. Nobody would do it. It's time > consuming. > > >>> > > >>> Il gio 8 ott 2020, 09:21 Djordje Bajić <djole.ba...@gmail.com> ha > > >> scritto: > > >>>> Hello Andrea, Jan, > > >>>> > > >>>> In that case, maybe PR reviewers can run tests locally on that > branch > > >> and > > >>>> check? What do you guys think? > > >>>> > > >>>> - Djordje > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, 08:09 Andrea Cosentino, <anco...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hello, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> No, incremental build are not supported. The Camel build is too > > >> complex > > >>>> for > > >>>>> that. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Il giorno gio 8 ott 2020 alle ore 08:07 Djordje Bajić < > > >>>>> djole.ba...@gmail.com> > > >>>>> ha scritto: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Hi Jan! > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Yes i understand that tests are gonna last long. Idk if there is > > >>>>>> possibility to specify to run only tests for that particular > > >> component > > >>>> or > > >>>>>> project inside the camel? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2020, 21:09 Jan Bednář, <m...@janbednar.eu> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Hi, > > >>>>>>> It would be great IMO, but I think you need to actually run the > > >> tests > > >>>>>>> for coverage report. We currently skip tests for github PR, > > >> because > > >>>> it > > >>>>>>> takes many hours to test whole codebase - these are running > > >> during > > >>>>>>> nightly build. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Dne 7.10.2020 v 15:08 Djordje Bajić napsal(a): > > >>>>>>>> Hello fellow Cameleers! > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I am looking into twitter component, doing some small > > >> refactoring. > > >>>> I > > >>>>>>>> noticed something interesting, code coverage is a little above > > >> 50%, > > >>>>> in > > >>>>>> my > > >>>>>>>> opinion that is a really poor %. What do you think that we add > > >> some > > >>>>>>> checks > > >>>>>>>> or when doing PR reviews to also check coverage of added code? > > >>>> This > > >>>>>> way > > >>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>> will promote that tests are mandatory in order to approve > > >> PR. Of > > >>>>>> course > > >>>>>>>> there will be some cases when tests are not available to be > > >>>> written, > > >>>>>>> anyway > > >>>>>>>> i think this will help us reduce the number of bugs and give us > > >>>>> freedom > > >>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> add, change and refactor with more confidence. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >> > > > > > -- Otavio R. Piske http://orpiske.net
