On Apr 26, 2012, at 9:19 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
>
>> Kevin, should we start copying openstack-common tests to client
>> projects? Or just make sure to not count openstack-common code in the
>> code coverage numbers for client projects?
>
> That's a tough one. If we copy in the tests, th
On 04/27/2012 04:12 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Joe Gordon wrote:
It would nice to initially see the code coverage delta per merge
proposal as a comment in gerrit (similar to SmokeStack), and not as a
gating factor.
+1
Sounds like a good way to evaluate how blocking it should be, and use it
to
- Original Message -
> > Kevin, should we start copying openstack-common tests to client
> > projects? Or just make sure to not count openstack-common code in
> > the
> > code coverage numbers for client projects?
>
> That's a tough one. If we copy in the tests, they end up being some
Joe Gordon wrote:
> It would nice to initially see the code coverage delta per merge
> proposal as a comment in gerrit (similar to SmokeStack), and not as a
> gating factor.
+1
Sounds like a good way to evaluate how blocking it should be, and use it
to make more informed decisions on the qualit
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 11:53 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote:
> It would nice to initially see the code coverage delta per merge
> proposal as a comment in gerrit (similar to SmokeStack), and not as a
> gating factor.
+1
> Kevin, should we start copying openstack-common tests to client
> projects? Or ju
bject:* Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack][Nova] Minimum required code
> coverage per file
>
> One concern I have is this: suppose we find that a code block is
> unnecessary, or can be refactored more compactly, but it has test coverage.
> Then removing it would make the % coverage fall.
stin Santa Barbara [jus...@fathomdb.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 5:20 PM
To: Monty Taylor
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] [OpenStack][Nova] Minimum required code coverage per
file
One concern I have is this: suppose we find that a code block is unnecessary,
One concern I have is this: suppose we find that a code block is
unnecessary, or can be refactored more compactly, but it has test coverage.
Then removing it would make the % coverage fall.
We want to remove the code, but we'd have to add unrelated tests to the
same merge because otherwise the te
Hey - funny story - in responding to Justin I re-read the original email
and realized it was asking for a static low number, which we _can_ do -
at least project-wide. We can't do per-file yet, nor can we fail on a
downward inflection... and I've emailed Justin about that.
If we have consensus on
If you let me know in a bit more detail what you're looking for, I can
probably whip something up. Email me direct?
Justin
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
>
> On 04/24/2012 10:08 PM, Lorin Hochstein wrote:
> >
> > On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> >
> >>
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 13:11 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote:
> nova/openstack/common/iniparser 40%
>
> nova/openstack/common/cfg 41%
It's probably worth pointing out that, although openstack-common has
comprehensive unit tests, apparently, those tests are not copied into
client projects when the code is…
On 04/24/2012 10:08 PM, Lorin Hochstein wrote:
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I would like to propose a minimum required code coverage level per
>> file in Nova. Say 80%. This would mean that any new feature/file
>> should only be accepted if it has over
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I would like to propose a minimum required code coverage level per file in
> Nova. Say 80%. This would mean that any new feature/file should only be
> accepted if it has over 80% code coverage. Exceptions to this rule would be
> a
On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I would like to propose a minimum required code coverage level per file in
> Nova. Say 80%. This would mean that any new feature/file should only be
> accepted if it has over 80% code coverage. Exceptions to this rule would be
>
] Minimum required code coverage per
file
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Joe Gordon
mailto:j...@cloudscaling.com>> wrote:
Hi All,
I would like to propose a minimum required code coverage level per file in
Nova. Say 80%. This would mean that any new feature/file should only be
accepted if
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I would like to propose a minimum required code coverage level per file in
> Nova. Say 80%. This would mean that any new feature/file should only be
> accepted if it has over 80% code coverage. Exceptions to this rule would
> be
Hi All,
I would like to propose a minimum required code coverage level per file in
Nova. Say 80%. This would mean that any new feature/file should only be
accepted if it has over 80% code coverage. Exceptions to this rule would
be allowed for code that is covered by skipped tests (as long as 80
17 matches
Mail list logo
