Hey - funny story - in responding to Justin I re-read the original email and realized it was asking for a static low number, which we _can_ do - at least project-wide. We can't do per-file yet, nor can we fail on a downward inflection... and I've emailed Justin about that.
If we have consensus on gating on project-wide threshold, I can certainly add adding that to the gate to the todo list. (If we decide to do that, I'd really like to make that be openstack-wide rather than just nova... although I imagine it might take a few weeks to come to consensus on what the project-wide low number should be. Current numbers on project-wide lines numbers: nova: 79% glance: 75% keystone: 81% swift: 80% horizon: 91% Perhaps we get nova and glance up to 80 and then set the threshold for 80? Also, turns out we're not running this on the client libs... Monty On 04/25/2012 03:53 PM, Justin Santa Barbara wrote: > If you let me know in a bit more detail what you're looking for, I can > probably whip something up. Email me direct? > > Justin > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Monty Taylor <mord...@inaugust.com > <mailto:mord...@inaugust.com>> wrote: > > > > On 04/24/2012 10:08 PM, Lorin Hochstein wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I would like to propose a minimum required code coverage level per > >> file in Nova. Say 80%. This would mean that any new feature/file > >> should only be accepted if it has over 80% code coverage. Exceptions > >> to this rule would be allowed for code that is covered by skipped > >> tests (as long as 80% is reached when the tests are not skipped). > >> > > > > I like the idea of looking at code coverage numbers. For any > particular > > merge proposal, I'd also like to know whether it increases or > decreases > > the overall code coverage of the project. I don't think we should gate > > on this, but it would be helpful for a reviewer to see that, > especially > > for larger proposals. > > Yup... Nati requested this a couple of summits ago - main issue is that > while we run code coverage and use the jenkins code coverage plugin to > track the coverage numbers, the plugin doesn't fully support this > particular kind of report. > > HOWEVER - if any of our fine java friends out there want to chat with me > about adding support to the jenkins code coverage plugin to track and > report this, I will be thrilled to put it in as a piece of reported > information. > > >> With 193 python files in nova/tests, Nova unit tests produce 85% > >> overall code coverage (calculated with ./run_test.sh -c [1]). > But 23% > >> of files (125 files) have lower then 80% code coverage (30 tests > >> skipped on my machine). Getting all files to hit the 80% code > >> coverage mark should be one of the goals for Folsom. > >> > > > > I would really like to see a visualization of the code coverage > > distribution, in order to help spot the outliers. > > > > > > Along these lines, there's been a lot of work in the software > > engineering research community about predicting which parts of the > code > > are most likely to contain bugs ("fault prone" is a good keyword > to find > > this stuff, e.g.: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fault+prone, big > > names include Nachi Nagappan at MS Research and Elaine Weyuker, > formerly > > of AT&T Research). I would *love* to see some academic researchers try > > to apply those techniques to OpenStack to help guide QA activities by > > identifying which parts of the code should get more rigorous testing > > and review. > > ++ > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack > Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net > <mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
