2008/9/30 Rafael Schloming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Aidan Skinner wrote: >> >> Dearest All, >> >> We've had the more formal commit-then-review process for a few weeks >> now. What we didn't really discuss was the standard to which commits >> were to be held. So I'd like to take a minute, if you'll sit right >> there, to tell you how we can become the prince of a town called >> "adequate test coverage". >> >> Our unit test coverage is... poor. Our system test coverage is better. >> You can get a decent idea of what our unit test coverage is by >> downloading cobertura (http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/) and >> unpacking it into qpid/java/lib/cobertura/ then running "ant >> cover-test coverage-report" and looking in build/coverage/index.html. >> It'll take a while to run because of the instrumentation, particularly >> SerialTest which takes an age. Running that in an module will put the >> coverage report for that module in build/<module>/coverage/index.html >> which is helpful. >> >> To improve this situation, I'd like to propose that not having a test >> case that covers your change is grounds for rejecting the patch. We >> certainly can't get better if we continue to make the situation worse. >> >> Thoughts? > > +1 > > --Rafael
+1 from me to. We can't expect to have better code if we don't at least try and test what we are writing. -- Martin Ritchie
