One concern I have is this: suppose we find that a code block is unnecessary, or can be refactored more compactly, but it has test coverage. Then removing it would make the % coverage fall.
We want to remove the code, but we'd have to add unrelated tests to the same merge because otherwise the test coverage % would fall? I think we can certainly enhance the metrics, but I do have concerns over strict gating (particularly per file, where the problem is more likely to occur than per-project) Maybe the gate could be that line count of uncovered lines must not increase, unless the new % coverage > 80%. Or we could simply have a gate bypass. Justin On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Monty Taylor <mord...@inaugust.com> wrote: > 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
