Clint,
Anyway, interesting thoughts from everyone. I have to agree with those > that say this isn't reliable enough to make it vote. Non-voting would be > interesting though, if it gave a clear score difference, and a diff of > the two coverage reports. I think this is more useful as an automated > pointer to how things probably should be, but sometimes it's entirely > o-k to regress this number a few points. Diffs between reports is almost ready. Best regards, Boris Pavlovic On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Boris Pavlovic's message of 2015-04-18 18:30:02 -0700: > > Hi stackers, > > > > Code coverage is one of the very important metric of overall code quality > > especially in case of Python. It's quite important to ensure that code is > > covered fully with well written unit tests. > > > > One of the nice thing is coverage job. > > > > In Rally we are running it against every check which allows us to get > > detailed information about > > coverage before merging patch: > > > http://logs.openstack.org/84/175084/1/check/rally-coverage/c61d5e1/cover/ > > > > This helped Rally core team to automate checking that new/changed code is > > covered by unit tests and we raised unit test coverage from ~78% to > almost > > 91%. > > > > But it produces few issues: > > 1) >9k nitpicking - core reviewers have to put -1 if something is not > > covered by unit tests > > 2) core team scaling issues - core team members spend a lot of time just > > checking that whole code is covered by unit test and leaving messages > like > > this should be covered by unit test > > 3) not friendly community - it's not nice to get on your code -1 from > > somebody that is asking just to write unit tests > > 4) coverage regressions - sometimes we accidentally accept patches that > > reduce coverage > > > > To resolve this issue I improved a bit coverage job in Rally project, and > > now it compares master vs master + patch coverage. If new coverage is > less > > than master job is marked as -1. > > > > Here is the patch for job enhancement: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174645/ > > > > Here is coverage job in action: > > patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174677/ > > job message > > > http://logs.openstack.org/77/174677/4/check/rally-coverage/ba49c90/console.html#_2015-04-17_15_57_17_695 > > > > The link to the important line was key, because without it, just clicking > through from the review was incomprehensible to me. Can I suggest some > whitespace or bordering so we can see where the error is easily? > > Anyway, interesting thoughts from everyone. I have to agree with those > that say this isn't reliable enough to make it vote. Non-voting would be > interesting though, if it gave a clear score difference, and a diff of > the two coverage reports. I think this is more useful as an automated > pointer to how things probably should be, but sometimes it's entirely > o-k to regress this number a few points. > > Also graphing this over time in a post-commit job seems like a no-brainer. > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 >
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
