Hi Rob I agree. Enforcing a minimum level of coverage as a start is awesome.
I must add though keeping it at 100% and breaking the build has almost never worked in practice for me. Keeping a slightly lower level ~98% is slightly more pragmatic. Also, the currently low coverages will have to be addressed as well. Is there a blueprint that can be created to tackle it? -Rajat On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Rob Cresswell (rcresswe) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > As far as I’m aware, we don’t currently enforce any minimum unit test > coverage, despite Karma generating reports. I think as part of the review > guidelines, it would be useful to set a minimum. Since Karma’s detection is > fairly relaxed, I’d put it at 100% on the automated reports. > > I think the biggest drawback is that the tests may not be “valuable”, > but rather just meet the minimum requirements. I understand this sentiment, > but I think that “less valuable” is better then “not present” and it gives > reviewers a clear line to +1/ -1 a patch. Furthermore, it encourages the > unit tests to be written in the first place, so that reviewers can then ask > for improvements, rather than miss them. > > Rob > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
