My vote: RJS docs.
Once you get a list up, make sure to pass the link out here.
"Let's get it on!" (TM)
-hampton.
On 4/26/06, Kevin Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll take it. I'll post on my blog about it tonight and get some sort
of todo list so we can track who's working on what docs/tests and try
to get sd.rb in on the action (best way to learn about it is to have
to write about it ;) ).
Kev
On 4/26/06, Scott Barron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Apr 26, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Tobias Lütke wrote:
>
> > I don't understand this blog post. The graph looks more then
> > healthy to me.
>
> The graph doesn't mean much, really. It says that as the code LOC
> (measured by whatever he's using to measure LOC) has increased, the
> test LOC has increased in roughly the same proportion, and that test
> LOC is some degree lower, in terms of LOC, than code LOC.
>
> I think what he's driving at is that these lines should be converging
> rather than increasing at the same rate. Meaning we should be
> refactoring (lowering the code line) and adding more tests
> (increasing the test line). Or that when adding features, the test
> line rises at a greater rate than the code line.
>
> But, test:code LOC ratio doesn't really mean anything. It indicates
> nothing about the coverage of the tests or the quality
> ("correctness") of the tests. It makes a big assumption that the
> writers of tests are creating perfect tests that cover all scenarios
> the test is intended to cover, and that's never going to be the case,
> whether the tests are written by humans or generated automatically.
>
> There is no one metric for "test quality", there are several
> measurements that can be made. In the context of those other
> measurements, this graph might have meaning, perhaps it would
> demonstrate a correlation between code:test and coverage, but on its
> own it's pretty pointless, and is just being used an excuse to rant
> about something.
>
> Of course we've got code that could use refactoring, of course there
> are areas that could use increased test coverage, and of course we
> could benefit from increased and clarified documentation. What
> project isn't like that?
>
> I agree with Chad and strongly encourage folks to add documentation
> and test coverage. Everyone would benefit. A contest could be a
> neat idea if you can come up with some kind of metrics to determine a
> "winner", and that they are fair and published.
>
> -Scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-core mailing list
> Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
>
_______________________________________________
Rails-core mailing list
Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
_______________________________________________ Rails-core mailing list Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
