I suggest creating a dedicated task such as DSIP, which focuses on increasing the UT coverage value. At the same time, it can attract more new contributors to join DS. Because UT will be a good PR for first
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 10:58 PM david zollo <[email protected]> wrote: > 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) > > >
