Hi everyone, TL;DR: 1. Let's call each other out on our PRs when test coverage is missing or insufficient 2. Let's require test coverage for code that gets refactored as well
We already have a really great wiki page <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Criteria+for+Code+Submissions> on how we evaluate code contributions. Among other things it calls out test coverage for new features as well as for bug fixes. I don't think we've always been diligent in ensuring healthy test coverage when we've been reviewing PRs. This seems like something we should correct as a community to ensure Geode can provide the high quality our users expect and at the same time give us fast feedback loops in our daily work. We need to get better code coverage, so rejecting PRs till they have appropriate test coverage, seems like an obvious thing we need to do. It's also interesting to me that the wiki page calls out coverage for features and bugs. What about refactoring code that is currently missing coverage? To refactor with confidence we need test coverage. Therefore test coverage should be a precondition for refactoring. I'd like to amend our wiki to also require test coverage for refactored code. Ideally that coverage would already be there, but we all know that's unfortunately rarely the case. This is going to hurt in the short run, but gets us closer where we want to be. As always, if it's unreasonable to provide certain types of test coverage, then let's have an explicit conversation on the PR. Note: When I say "appropriate test coverage", I am referring to coverage of the functionality in breadth, but also in depth via a healthy testing pyramid <https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TestPyramid.html> that includes unit tests, integration tests etc. What do you all think?
