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