On November 2, 2010, Gary Poster wrote: > On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Deryck Hodge wrote: > > FWIW, while the pain of Windmill has been acute lately, I don't recall > > a month without some form of Windmill pain since I've been working on > > Launchpad. > > Point taken. > > I'm still not convinced myself, and would much prefer the > integration-tests-for-deployment story, but I'm just a vote. > > > I feel the same about page tests. > > Something I should have said in my first reply is that discarding the > Windmill tests worries me; discarding the page tests frightens me, unless > the unit test coverage is much, much higher than I believe it to be. I > think these two parts of your proposal should be separate. > > Perhaps a reasonable next step for the page test part of your proposal > would be to run the tests, collecting line-coverage statistics with and > without the pagetests? There may be other options to collect this, but > the --coverage option described in the bin/test --help output would be one > approach. If the unit tests alone have similar coverage to the unit tests > plus pagetests, that would be at least a data point to console me. >
I don't know if things have changed, but last time I tried to run ./bin/test with --coverage, I OOM my laptop (4Gigs of RAM). So we might have a problem here. -- Francis J. Lacoste [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
