On 09:30 Apr 20, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 04/20/2015 07:13 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > >On 04/18/2015 09:30 PM, Boris Pavlovic wrote: > >>Hi stackers, > >> > >>Code coverage is one of the very important metric of overall code > >>quality especially in case of Python. It's quite important to ensure > >>that code is covered fully with well written unit tests. > >> > >>One of the nice thing is coverage job. > >> > >>In Rally we are running it against every check which allows us to get > >>detailed information about > >>coverage before merging patch: > >>http://logs.openstack.org/84/175084/1/check/rally-coverage/c61d5e1/cover/ > >> > >>This helped Rally core team to automate checking that new/changed code > >>is covered by unit tests and we raised unit test coverage from ~78% to > >>almost 91%. > >> > >>But it produces few issues: > >>1) >9k nitpicking - core reviewers have to put -1 if something is not > >>covered by unit tests > >>2) core team scaling issues - core team members spend a lot of time just > >>checking that whole code is covered by unit test and leaving messages > >>like this should be covered by unit test > >>3) not friendly community - it's not nice to get on your code -1 from > >>somebody that is asking just to write unit tests > >>4) coverage regressions - sometimes we accidentally accept patches that > >>reduce coverage > >> > >>To resolve this issue I improved a bit coverage job in Rally project, > >>and now it compares master vs master + patch coverage. If new coverage > >>is less than master job is marked as -1. > >> > >>Here is the patch for job enhancement: > >>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174645/ > >> > >>Here is coverage job in action: > >>patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174677/ > >>job message > >>http://logs.openstack.org/77/174677/4/check/rally-coverage/ba49c90/console.html#_2015-04-17_15_57_17_695 > > > >Honestly, I'm suspicious of approaches like this. While 90% coverage is > >clearly better than 0% coverage, it's not clear that 91% coverage is > >always better than 90% coverage. Especially when you talk about larger > >and more complex code bases. > > Well, I think there are very few cases where *less* coverage is better. > > >I actually firmly feel that #3 is wrong. I think it's a lot better to > >have an early conversation with people about unit tests that need to be > >written when they don't submit any. Because I think it's a lot less > >friendly to have someone iterate 10 patches to figure out how to pass a > >bot's idea of good tests, and then have a reviewer say it's wrong. > > This I completely agree with. Asking for unit tests is a common > thing, and if done early in the review process, is not a > "non-friendly" thing. It's just matter of fact. And if the comment is > given with some example unit test code -- or a pointer to a unit test > that could be used as an example -- even better. It grows the > submitter.
I also agree talking with people early about this is fine. I deal with new reviewers often, and it has never been a negative experience. Just don't be a jerk when asking, and follow up soon. -- Mike Perez __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
