Hi Chufeng, Thanks. I am very interested in adding more UT and UT refactor, I will try to follow.
B. R. Yann On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:33 PM Chufeng Gao <[email protected]> wrote: > 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) > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
