May be I am old fashion, but requesting mandatory automated tests for all the changes is not a good idea. We are a small team. And we don't have a problem of regressions. May be, with the new web api, with the many changes we will have in the next months, is a good idea.
Gonzalo On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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 > https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-build/tree/master/tests > > > > On 17 May 2013 15:16, Simon Schampijer <si...@schampijer.de> wrote: > >> 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 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 >>> code is landing and the more code without tests we need to maintain the >>> worst the quality situation will get. I guess 3 would also be a >>> possibility >>> if we want to try it out and increase gradually. >>> >>> >>> On 13 May 2013 00:28, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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, if we >>>> have >>>> consensus. >>>> >>>> A few details: >>>> >>>> * What to do with patches which have been already submitted? I think it >>>> really depends on the patch, so I'd leave it to the reviewer discretion. >>>> * Should this apply to bug fixes? I tend to think it should, we are not >>>> in >>>> a particularly active bug fixing period now, so it's a good time to >>>> start >>>> with those too. >>>> * Cannot apply to javascript code yet, because the infra is not in >>>> place. >>>> Though writing the infra is on the short time priorities, so this should >>>> change soon. >>>> * Cannot apply to activities because we are missing infra bits. It would >>>> not be too hard to add them, but I think we should focus on html >>>> activities >>>> now. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Daniel Narvaez >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Daniel Narvaez > > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > >
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel