gt; > I don't want to spread the discussion over tests. But when it
> > comes
> > > > to
> > > > > > > improving tests, I want to share the most emergent items on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > tison.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lin Zhao 于2022年9月10日周六
> > 00:26写道：
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to start a discussion about turning on CodeCov
> report
> > > for
> > > > > PRs
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > master to show the PR's impact on unit test coverage.
> Previous
> > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > on https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17382.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Proposal:
> > > > > > > > 1. Unit test coverage will be added to the CI pipeline and
> > > reported
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > PR page.
> > > > > > > > Sample report:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @@Coverage Diff@@##
> master
> > > > > > > > #17382 +/- ##
> > > > > > > > =
> > > > > > > > Coverage ? 32.10%
> > > > > > > > Complexity? 4141
> > > > > > > > =
> > > > > > > > Files ? 387
> > > > > > > > Lines ?42806
> > > > > > > > Branches ? 4420
> > > > > > > > =
> > > > > > > > Hits ?13741
> > > > > > > > Misses?27032
> > > > > > > > Partials ? 2033
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. The report will serve as additional input for the
> reviewers.
> > > The
> > > > > > > > requester is expected to explain any significant negative
> > impact.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >1. The existing code coverage for Pulsar is very poor at
> > just
> > > > > above
> > > > > > > > 50%. Reasonable expectation for libraries is 90% and 70 or
> 80%
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > broker. We are at 60% and 50%.
> > > > > > > >2. The coverage report would prevent coverage from getting
> > > worse
> > > > > > > > and bring the conversation on the table.
> > > > > > > >3. Even though code coverage has its limitation in
> assessing
> > > > test
> > > > > > > > coverage, it's the only viable tool.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > yaalsn
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Elliot West
Senior Platform Engineer
elliot.w...@streamnative.io
streamnative.io
<https://github.com/streamnative>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/streamnative>
<https://twitter.com/streamnativeio>
lsar.
>
> What's the right way for us to address this problem?
>
> --
> Devin Bost
> Sent from mobile
> Cell: 801-400-4602
>
--
Elliot West
Senior Platform Engineer
elliot.w...@streamnative.io
streamnative.io
<https://github.com/streamnative>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/streamnative>
<https://twitter.com/streamnativeio>
ution are not currently supportable in the Pulsar ecosystem
and that perhaps they should be.
Elliot.
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 at 14:56, Elliot West
wrote:
> Hey Devin,
>
> *"Kafka conforms to the JSON Schema specification"*
> Only when using Confluent's Schema Registry.
>
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19665
--
Elliot West
Senior Platform Engineer
elliot.w...@streamnative.io
streamnative.io
<https://github.com/streamnative>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/streamnative>
<https://twitter.com/streamnativeio>
> > > === My suggestion
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > # Motivation and Background information
> > > > > > > > * Give a high level explanation on all concepts you will be
> > using
> > > > > > > > throughout this document. For example, if you want to talk
e for developers to maintain.
> Consequently,
> > > some developers avoid using schemas entirely, but that has its own
> > > consequences.
> > > 3. If a message's content is invalid, send the message to an "invalid
> > > message topic". Since the concerns ab
