Thank you David & Brian on driving this plan forward. I am happy we will release a Pulp 3.0 Core Beta with a known % coverage for unit tests, a policy in place and mechanisms in place to ensure that number only goes up.
In the future, I would like for us to flush out more the definition of valuable unit tests vs. "not valuable," since I heard this a lot generically but not spelled out in any way. I think this would be a good way to provide transparency and ensure that when the % goes up in a valuable way, but I don't believe that to be highest on our priority list. Thank you! Robin On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > There was a lot of +1 support on the PR. The basic Pulp3 unit test policy > can be seen here: https://docs.pulpproject.org/ > en/3.0/nightly/contributing/unit_tests.html > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> This is a wrap-up update with the last next steps (for now) on the Pulp3 >> unit test discussion. >> >> 1. Here is a docs PR adopting simple but specific policy language >> recommending unit tests for Pulp3: https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3411 >> 2. We need to move our existing unit tests into their "forever home" so >> @daviddavis and I groomed this issue and put it on the sprint: >> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3553 >> >> For any areas of Pulp3 untested code that you want to add unit tests for >> please file a Task in Redmine for that. A few of those have been filed AIUI. >> >> If there are any issues with these changes please bring them up. Any >> aspect of them can be rethought. David and I have tried to facilitate what >> we've heard from the group. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I want to summarize what I've heard to facilitate some next steps and >>> further discussion. >>> >>> There seems to be broad support and no -1 votes to the idea of a soft >>> check that tracks unit test coverage, so we wanted to get that out of the >>> way. Daviddavis enabled unit test coverage reporting for all Pulp3 PRs ( >>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3397) and it will report on all PRs >>> now. Currently, it shows 54.98% for pulpcore. That number is surprisingly >>> high but not awesome. When looking at the report, it is mainly all import >>> statements and function definitions since we have few/zero unit tests but >>> also not much code. >>> >>> Based on feedback it sounds like leaving it at a soft check and highly >>> encouraging unit tests with each PR is something we could all agree on. I >>> want us to get to specific language that we can add into the Pulp3 docs as >>> a new section called "Unit Tests" here: https://docs.pulpproject.org/e >>> n/3.0/nightly/contributing/index.html Here is a starting point, please >>> send suggestions: "All new code is highly encouraged to have basic unit >>> tests that demonstrate its functionality. A Pull Request that has failing >>> unit tests cannot be merged." >>> >>> >>> Also from the convo on-list and on-irc, here are some questions I would >>> like help answering: >>> >>> * What areas in the existing codebase would really benefit from unit >>> testing? I think we need a classpath list of modules and classes. I made an >>> etherpad here: https://etherpad.net/p/Pulp_Unit_Test_Candidates >>> >>> * What are the existing unit tests and where do they live? >>> >>> * What docs need to be added to make contributing unit tests reasonable? >>> >>> >>> Thanks for all the discussion! >>> -Brian >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Jeremy Audet <jau...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> > I'm also generally -1 against trying to pick a number (100%, 80%, >>>> 60%) up-front. We should unit test what makes sense to unit test, push >>>> that number as high as reasonable, and otherwise focus on pulp-smash, which >>>> I think has historically been more useful. >>>> >>>> QE is flattered by the focus on Pulp Smash. We're happy that the smoke >>>> tests are being executed as a pull request check. >>>> >>>> However, it's important to remember that unit tests are far faster >>>> than integration tests, typically by several orders of magnitude. In >>>> addition, Pulp Smash's smoke tests are intentionally limited. They're >>>> designed to execute quickly and to detect catastrophic regressions. >>>> They're not intended to be comprehensive. In fact, some of the >>>> already-written test cases may be stripped of their "smoke test" >>>> status for the sake of speed. Psychology is important here: it's bad >>>> if a developer locally fires off smoke tests, gets bored, and opens up >>>> a new web browser tab. >>>> >>>> Please keep this limitation in mind when deciding on policies >>>> regarding smoke tests. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> Pulpemail@example.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulpfirstname.lastname@example.org > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulpemail@example.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev