Hello Quan,
Thanks for putting this effort together.
This also gives us a glance at one quality metric. Your report shows a
code coverage of 72%.
-> What is the impact on the build time?
-> A quick review of your work on github led me to think that code
coverage (especially the scala one) is under-evaluated.
CF http://timezra.blogspot.com/2013/10/jacoco-and-scala.html
By taking into account that scala code coverage is under-evaluated it is
reasonable to think that Apache James code coverage is more in the
80-85% range. Not bad!
-> How accessible is the report?
I see that it is accessible as an archive on Jenkins, as a build artifact.
Would there be a way to connect it to github (code coverage badge, have
a comment regarding code coverage)
Best regards,
Benoit
On 21/04/2023 09:56, Quan tran hong wrote:
Hi folks,
I think the code coverage report for James would be a helpful factor to
acknowledge how good enough of the tests have been written and will be
written.
Therefore I am experimenting and working on a POC for this adoption. The
first goal is to generate an aggregate report for James modules and then
based on the result we can observe and discuss more about actions to take
e.g: write more tests where are needed and helpful, or even set a code
coverage level for some specific modules.
Jira ticket:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/JAMES/issues/JAMES-3903?filter=allissues
PR: https://github.com/apache/james-project/pull/1522
Feedback and opinions are very welcome on this topic.
Best regards,
Quan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
