preview -> previous, sorry for the typo : ) *Best Regards,*
*Chufeng (Eric) Gao* On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:29 PM Chufeng Gao <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Yann, > > That's a good suggestion. Actually we have DSIP-10[1] with detailed plans > for UT coverage and the community has been working on it. > We also had an email thread[2] discussing related stuff. Giving examples > for UT refactoring / improvement and encourage more contributors to > participate are covered in our plans as well. > At this moment, we are removing `Powermock`[3] from DS project and try to > upgrade all test cases from jUnit4 to jUnit5[4], which are the pre-tasks of > UT refactoring / improvement. > Once these pre-tasks done, we will refactor the UT cases and increase > coverage module by module. > > You are very welcome to join us in moving DSIP-10 forward! > > BTW, you could refer to the links below to catch up with the preview > discussions : ) > > [1] https://github.com/apache/dolphinscheduler/issues/10573 > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/gcf8yfrnt94l1yqpf548cfbmo4o65blo > [3] https://github.com/apache/dolphinscheduler/issues/11405 > [4] https://github.com/apache/dolphinscheduler/pull/11332 > > Thanks! > > *Best Regards,* > > *Chufeng (Eric) Gao* > > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:12 PM yann ann <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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) >> > > >> > >> >
