+1
Thanks,
Marius
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
+1
Thanks,
Caty
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Sounds interesting,
+1.
Thanks,
Eduard
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool
> (Descartes, based on Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It
generates
a mutation score for your tests, defining how
good the tests are.
Technical
Descartes performs some extreme mutations on the
code under test (e.g.
remove content of void methods, return true for methods returning a
boolean, etc - See
https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes).
If
> the test continues to pass then it means it’s not killing the mutant
and
> thus its mutation score decreases.
> >
> > So in short:
> > * Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
> > * Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
> >
> > Both provide a percentage value.
> >
> > I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for
xwiki-commons
> and xwiki-rendering and fail the build when
new code is added that
reduce
the
mutation score threshold (exactly the same as our jacoco threshold
and
> strategy).
> >
> > I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software
> engineering a bit further. I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I
> propose to do the work and test this for over 2-3 months and see how
well
> it works or not. At that time we can then
decide whether it works or
not
> (i.e whether the gains it brings are more
important than the problems
it
ControllingTestQuality
MutationTestingDescartes
> >
> > If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score
report
at
http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/
MutationTestingDescartes/report.png
Please cast your votes.
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne