It sounds like most everyone else supports installed tests. OK, then. On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 10:22 +0000, Philip Withnall wrote: > I agree that developers need to be engaged with adding more unit > tests > and code coverage if such a goal is to be useful. I wonder if making > it > a goal would kick-start some people to do that? I don’t think we can > ever expect the majority of maintainers to care about (or have enough > time to care about) code coverage and unit testing — but GNOME goals > have been useful catalysts in the past. I guess a suitably well > publicised and tutorialised blog post would work just as well though. >
This is the other thing. The goals should be achievable, something we can look at in a year or two and say "all apps meet the goal" and close it, not a longstanding epic that stays open forever. The installed tests and coverage goals do not really qualify. Even though more tests are definitely desirable, I don't think it's reasonable to use the GNOME Goals project for this, even if it would be nice to see as many projects as possible adopting it. Maybe I am being too negative here. It does seem odd to say that doing something desirable should not be a goal. But a longstanding pie-in- the-sky project is very different from existing goals. Switching to g_timeout_add_seconds() or adding a GtkHeaderBar are quick tasks that all apps should be able to accomplish easily. Adding a comprehensive testsuite, not so much. And adding just one or two installed tests, while a good starting point, is not very useful on its own. Michael _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
