> Let's not mix the bad unit tests in Nova with the fact that code should > be fully covered by well written unit tests.
I'm not using bad tests in nova to justify not having coverage testing. I'm saying that the argument that "more coverage is always better" has some real-life counter examples. Also, "a test that says coverage increased might lead to lazy +2s" is very similar to "this code made it into the tree because it had a ton of (bad) tests that made it look well-tested", which we already know is true :) > P.S. Unit tests are the first criteria of code quality: if it is hard to > cover code by unit tests, code is bad written and should be refactored. Totally agree. Draw what conclusions you will about my feelings on the quality of the code that is tested by those tests :) --Dan __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
