-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26123/#review54772
-----------------------------------------------------------


Love this!


build.gradle
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/26123/#comment95046>

    extra slash?



build.gradle
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/26123/#comment95047>

    can we pull these values out to constants so it's easy[1] to bump them up 
as coverage increases?
    
    [1] not that it's hard, but I imagine future diffs are easier if it's just:
    
        + MINIMUM_LINE_COVERAGE=0.87
        - MINIMUM_LINE_COVERAGE=0.86



build.gradle
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/26123/#comment95049>

    This seems like a potentially harsh penalty for good behavior if someone 
has to go from 0 to $MIN_COVERAGE in one go...
    
    I can imagine it encouraging the opposite of the desired behavior for 
someone adding new code to a legacy class but not adding code coverage because 
it means writing tests for the entire class as part of their change.


- Joshua Cohen


On Sept. 27, 2014, 11:25 p.m., Bill Farner wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/26123/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 27, 2014, 11:25 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen, Kevin Sweeney, and Maxim Khutornenko.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This will fail the build if:
> - global line or branch coverage is below a threshold
> - a class has no test coverage
> - a class flagged as known to have no coverage gains coverage
> 
> Hopefully we can all contribute to whittle the legacy non-covered list down 
> to zero.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   build.gradle eabf65c13749ca98929e6b845cbc5f0d248003d6 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/26123/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> ./gradlew build -Pq
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill Farner
> 
>

Reply via email to