Hi! I just came across this coverage tool integration https://coveralls.io/features and I immediately thought of this thread. We would still have the problem of testing being a long job, but I like the idea of having a notification per request saying if the coverage is better or worse.
Cheers! María. On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 8:10 PM Djordje Bajić <djole.ba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all! > > First off all thanks for such a great discussion. My main goal was to start > some conversation and to check if someone has some ideas about code > coverage and what would be next steps. > > Mandatory check that I suggested is a shot in the dark right now, since > habits don't change that easily and Jenkins build is too complex (which i > didn't know), but some small step in that direction could improve the > current state. > > Also it would be great to have some reports (daily, weekly, whatever), that > way, there may be some people who are willing to write tests for some > components/core..etc that are not covered well. > This could also enable some new contributors to get involved in development > much faster than the usual. > > Just my two cents. > > - Djordje > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 7:55 PM Otavio Rodolfo Piske <angusyo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > -- > - Đorđe Bajić
