On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:40 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Monday 2013-06-24 18:50 -0700, Clint Talbert wrote: > > So, the key things I want to know: > > * Will you support code coverage? Would it be useful to your work to > > have a regularly scheduled code coverage build & test run? > > * Would you want to additionally consider using something like > > JS-Lint for our codebase? > > For what it's worth, I found the old code coverage data useful. It > was useful to me to browse through it for code that I was > responsible for, to see: > * what code was being executed during our test runs and how that > matched with what I thought was being tested (it didn't always > match, it turns out) > * what areas might be in need of better tests > When I was looking at it, I was mostly focusing on the mochitests in > layout/style/test/. > > (I worry I might have been one of a very small number of people > doing this, though.) > > I think using code coverage tools separately on standards-compliance > test suites might also be interesting, e.g., to see what sort of > coverage the test suite for a particular specification gives us, and > whether there are tests we could contribute to improve it. > > -David > > -- > 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 > 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > I've also found decoder's code coverage data to be useful in checking what is exercised by our test suite, what might be dead code (this works better for finding counterexamples, of course), etc. I suspect the audience would be small without an effort to integrate it into our engineering processes though. I'd like to see reviewers insisting on reasonable coverage of all new added code by the test suite. - Kyle _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
