The first patch with tests landed just now! I'd say it went pretty
smoothly. Thanks to Walter for trying this out first :)
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
And the tests are doing their job :)
http://buildbot.sugarlabs.org/builders/raring-amd64-quick/builds/189/steps/shell_4/logs/stdio
On 9 June 2013 14:30, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
The first patch with tests landed just now! I'd say it went pretty
smoothly. Thanks to Walter for
On 05/18/2013 07:36 PM, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
2013/5/18 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com:
On 17 May 2013 15:13, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon, Manuel,
any feedback about this? I see a few possible levels
1 Everything, bugfixes included
2 Every feature patch
3 Every
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 06:21:54PM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
Marco would do 2 and then consider if we can move to 1.
Manuel would like 2.
Walter would be happy with 2, as long as there is guidance.
Gonzalo and James doesn't seem happy about requiring tests at all.
No, I don't mind
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 02:36:13PM -0300, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
[...]
I would also like to express my view on contributions. We should
not block any valuable contribution.
Suppose that a child finds a bug, then modifies a file in the XO and
then sends the modified file to us in a email
On 17 May 2013 15:13, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon, Manuel,
any feedback about this? I see a few possible levels
1 Everything, bugfixes included
2 Every feature patch
3 Every patch to the new html/javascript code
4 Nothing, leave it to the contributor willingness
2013/5/18 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com:
On 17 May 2013 15:13, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon, Manuel,
any feedback about this? I see a few possible levels
1 Everything, bugfixes included
2 Every feature patch
3 Every patch to the new html/javascript code
4 Nothing,
On Saturday, May 18, 2013 02:36:13 PM Manuel Quiñones wrote:
2013/5/18 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com:
On 17 May 2013 15:13, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon, Manuel,
any feedback about this? I see a few possible levels
1 Everything, bugfixes included
2 Every
I don't know if my opinion matters, but I would also suggest 100% code
coverage.
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Simon, Manuel,
any feedback about this? I see a few possible levels
1 Everything, bugfixes included
2 Every feature patch
3 Every patch to the new html/javascript code
4 Nothing, leave it to the contributor willingness
I'm opposed to 4 :) I tend to think we should do 2, because a lot of new
How does the test coverage looks like? Human testing or automated tests?
Thanks,
Simon
On 05/17/2013 03:13 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
Simon, Manuel,
any feedback about this? I see a few possible levels
1 Everything, bugfixes included
2 Every feature patch
3 Every patch to the new
+1 to adding tests to all new features, but some guidance on what
these tests should look like is necessary.
-walter
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.de wrote:
How does the test coverage looks like? Human testing or automated tests?
Thanks,
Simon
On
Oh sorry, I suppose I should have made that clear :) I'm talking about
automated tests, we have a few examples of them in the tree
https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-toolkit-gtk3/tree/master/tests
https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar/tree/master/tests
I'm happy to provide guidance on this (for as much time free time I have
available for sugar).
On 17 May 2013 15:23, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 to adding tests to all new features, but some guidance on what
these tests should look like is necessary.
-walter
On Fri,
IMO being a small team makes it an even better idea :) If you get used to
it, I think you write solid new code faster _with_ tests than without.
I disagree we don't have a regression problem. Just think of the settings
stuff that has been broken for months. Also we are scared to refactor stuff
Sorry for not answering yet, I was in doubt.because of the raising
the bar consequence.
I really missed unit-testings in Sugar when the GTK3 port was made. I
considered starting doing them at that time, but looked like a lot of
work. Adding testing to an already written system can be a pain.
On 17 May 2013 15:53, Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org wrote:
And for the html sugar, we should do full coverage testing.
You mean make check enforced 100% coverage? :) I would love it.
You proposed it, so people hate should be directed to you! I did it with a
project I and always felt sort
Hello,
I'd like to propose to make it a requirement, enforced by code reviews, to
provide good test coverage when submitting new code. It will raise the bar
for contributions but it's essential if we want to improve quality (and I
think we have to). I can add a paragraph about it to sugar-docs,
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:28:58AM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
I'd like to propose to make it a requirement, enforced by code
reviews, to provide good test coverage when submitting new code. It
will raise the bar for contributions but it's essential if we want
to improve quality (and I think
On Monday, 13 May 2013, James Cameron wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:28:58AM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
I'd like to propose to make it a requirement, enforced by code
reviews, to provide good test coverage when submitting new code. It
will raise the bar for contributions but it's
20 matches
Mail list logo
