Can't agree more. Now it's time for us to update the UT coverage value, I recommend setting the value to 60%, How do you think?
Best Regards --------------- Apache DolphinScheduler PMC Chair & Apache SeaTunnel PPMC David Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidzollo Twitter: @WorkflowEasy <https://twitter.com/WorkflowEasy> --------------- On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 9:06 PM yann ann <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All, > > As we discussed in the WeChat group, the current UT coverage of DS is not > high, in order to avoid increasing our historical debt. I suggest if it is > possible to establish a policy that future PRs must contain the > corresponding UT code. Of course, PRs that are not suitable for writing UTs > are excluded. > UT should a threshold condition for new PR. The reviewers need to determine > whether the current PR is covered by the test case. If not, the Contributor > should add the related UT, unless this PR does not need UT. > Doing so has the following benefits： > 1. Reviewers can migrate PRs more quickly, reducing reviewing time. > 2. Submitted PR can get basic quality assurance。 > 3. No further reduction in current test coverage > > Sure, of course there may be some "negative impressions". There is a small > probability that it may reduce someone's enthusiasm for submitting PR. But > I think the action is generally beneficial and it should be a consensus. > > B. R. > Yann (GithubID: DarkAssassinator) >
