<quote name="Gabriel Wicke" date="2015-09-03" time="17:03:03 -0700"> > In the services team, we found that prominent coverage metrics are a very > powerful motivator for keeping tests in order. We have set up 'voting' > coverage reports, which fail the overall tests if coverage falls, and make > it easy to check which lines aren't covered yet (via coveralls). In all > repositories we enabled this for, test coverage has since stabilized around > 80-90%.
We (RelEng), too, are interested in this. Given the nature of our projects we'll probably need to start this on a case-by-case basis, (un)fortunately. :) There's two parts to this (as I see it): informational and enforcement. Informational: * "Generate code coverage reports for extensions" ** https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T71685 * Add ^^^ to "QA Health scoreboard" ** https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108768 Enforcement: * What Gabriel described above. ** There's no one ticket for tracking this cross repos right now, I'll create one... ** https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T111546 Greg PS: I didn't mean to, but I forked this thread across wikitech-l and qa lists (my bcc to wikitech-l didn't make it through mailman, I don't think). See the other sub-thread on adding @integration test runs on wmf deploy branch creation at: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/qa/2015-September/thread.html -- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D | _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
