20 Aug
2012
20 Aug
'12
9:28 p.m.
On 08/20/2012 11:17 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi devs,
Each java module has a current TPC level (Test Percentage Coverage), be it 5% of 90%.
As part of improving XWiki's quality, the idea is that future commits in this module
shouldn't lower the module's quality.
One easy way to ensure this is to measure the current TPC level and make the build fail
whenever the build is under this TPC threshold.
This means that if you commit code that has less tests average than what currently exists
then the build will fail.
Here's one way to implement it:
<!-- Fail the build if the test coverage is below a given value.
Note: Since this takes a bit of time to execute we only run this when the
integration-tests profile is active -->
<profiles>
<profile>
<id>integration-tests</id>
<build>
<plugins>
<plugin>
<groupId>com.atlassian.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>maven-clover2-plugin</artifactId>
<configuration>
<targetPercentage>86.9%</targetPercentage>
</configuration>
<executions>
<execution>
<id>clover-check</id>
<phase>verify</phase>
<goals>
<goal>instrument-test</goal>
<goal>check</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
</executions>
</plugin>
</plugins>
</build>
</profile>
</profiles>
So this proposal is about the following strategy:
* Allow committers to modify module's pom.xml to fail the build when then TPC is
under the current threshold
* Since oldcore is really difficult to test, maybe we should not set build failing for
oldcore. OTOH oldcore is an important module. WDYT?
* If for some reason a committer wants to lower the TPC threshold for a module he needs
to get the agreement from the other committers (vote). There might be valid reasons like
fixing an important bug quickly for a release and writing a test is just too complex so
the writing of the test is to be delayed for after the release, etc.
* I'd like to consider this as an experiment and see how it goes
Note: This is about unit test TPC which is different from the TPC that includes
functional tests.
WDYT?
Here's my +1 to try this out and see how it goes.
+1.
I'm not sure that a [vote] is required, since that is usually something
that is too formal. By the rules, a vote should last 3 days, it should
have at least 3 +1, and no -1. But IMO a +1 means strong support, the
voter understands and agrees with the matter, and lowering the TPC is
not something on which people have a strong opinion. And the example
that you give requires a quick decision, the 3 days required to pass a
vote should be enough to write the missing tests.
So, I'd rather trust developers not to lower the threshold without a
valid reason, and we can always signal a change that we don't agree with
afterwards.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/