Hi,
Clover sounds good to me and I have tried it before.
+1 on the 75% test coverage.
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Test coverage, was: Process and content for next release?
On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
2) SCA Core (spi, core, hostutil, test, plus apis once that
refactor is done)
Features I would like to see complete before we consider this
stable are:
Class loading changes
Integration of databinding framework
Support for async callbacks
Support for complex properties
Transitive dependency support
I'd also like to see much better test coverage than what we have.
This is hard to quantify, but while code coverage does not
guarantee good tests, it is an indicator. So, to have a metric,
I'd like to see core (and other extensions) at 75% coverage when
run through Clover. I picked Clover since it is a decent tool and
license-friendly but if someone would like to suggest an
alternative we could look at it as well.
I think this goal is worth pursuing and would add that as a
criteria for the next release. Apache has a license for Clover so
we can all use it, Cobertura would be another alternative - any
preference here? Whatever we use, I don't think this should be part
of the build right now (although that could change later) but that
the tool should be run periodically and the results published
somewhere (e.g. on our site).
I prefer Clover as it also has nice IDE integration. I also think
test coverage should be run as part of an integration build and
published since it is a general indication of areas that need work.
Now Jim here only mentioned the core but this would apply to other
extensions as well - I would be inclined to extend this requirement
to any extension we consider "baseline" - any objections?
For extensions considered baseline, I think "respectable" code
coverage (~75%) is definitely a worthy goal. For baseline extensions,
I would also add that we should also have a minimum bar in terms of
what assembly features they support (e.g. state management, non-
blocking, etc.).
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
