On 11 May 2018, at 15:38, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: "comparing the previous report" won't work if we run this every days, it means you just have to wait 24h and the current report will be all green :) It should be compared to a specific report (or even several) like comparing to the current LTS branch report and to the report produced after the previous master release.

Will we also see a build in error in the ci.xwiki.org home page ? Not sure a notifications(a)xwiki.org mail only would be enough :)

Sounds OK.

-- Thomas Mortagne

On 14 May 2018, at 12:28, Marius Dumitru Florea <mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: What is the average computed TPC currently?

I would add: ** find the packages that have the TPC higher than what is declared in the pom (because we don't always update the TPC value declared in the pom when we refactor the code or when we add new tests)

> * Save a report in the directory for the Clover report at > http://ci.xwiki.org/view/Tools/job/Clover/ > * For all failures, send an email to notifications(a)xwiki.org with details > and a link to the saved report > * Ideally, and if we can do it, call the github API to find the authors of > commits for those packages and add them in the report. Examples of APIs we > could use: > ** https://api.github.com/repos/xwiki/xwiki-platform/commits? > since=2018-05-07T00:00:00Z&until=2018-05-10T00:00:00Z (there’s a path > parameter that could be used to filter but I don’t think it’ll work > ** https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/compare/master@ > %7B2018-05-07%7D...master@%7B2018-05-10%7D (the committers/authors need > to be extracted from the HTML which is a bit fragile) > * Add a step in the Release process to ensure that the global TPC has not > been lowered. This would be a way to ensure we pay attention to that and > fix it when we lower it. We would need to tune this to find something that > helps keep the TPC increasing while not putting too much pressure at the > same time on the release date. It doesn’t have to be in the release process > but we need some checkpoint to make sure we look at it and that all devs > fix the tests when they lower the global TPC, or at the very least that an > analysis is done in case where it’s hard to keep the TPC (for example, > removing existing code that had a lot of tests will lower the TPC ;)). > > WDYT? > > As a dev, would you be willing to pay attention to not lower the global > TPC and work to fix it when it happens?

> > Thanks > -Vincent

On 14 May 2018, at 13:30, Marius Dumitru Florea <mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: Requiring 70% TPC for new packages is a nice goal but I find it hard to achieve in practice.

Sure.

> > Thanks > -Vincent > >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent

On 14 May 2018, at 13:48, Marius Dumitru Florea <mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:

*should* but I don't think it happens in practice, for various reasons, mainly due to limited time. Did you check the TPC of the last 10 new packages? Is it above 70%?

> * For some modules, it makes less sense or it’s harder to have unit tests > and integration tests are better. We’re not talking about 70% of unit test > coverage but 70%+ coverage of overall testing (unit, integration, > functional). > > Now we’ll need to put in place to see it in action and verify if there are > cases where this can be hard to achieve. But I’d prefer that we consider > those cases as exceptional and handle them in an ad-hoc manner. > >> >>>> >>>>> ** Find packages and/or files having a TPC lower than the previous TPC >>>>> ** Find removed packages that had a TPC higher than the average > computed >>>>> TPC >>>>> >>>> >>>> I would add: >>>> >>>> ** find the packages that have the TPC higher than what is declared in >>> the >>>> pom (because we don't always update the TPC value declared in the pom >>> when >>>> we refactor the code or when we add new tests) >>> >>> Yes I agree. We should do that but not in the pipeline for the global >>> coverage. We should have another pipeline for this and update the > pom.xml >>> files in it. >>> >>>> >>>>> * Save a report in the directory for the Clover report at >>>>> http://ci.xwiki.org/view/Tools/job/Clover/ >>>>> * For all failures, send an email to notifications(a)xwiki.org with >>> details >>>>> and a link to the saved report >>>>> * Ideally, and if we can do it, call the github API to find the > authors >>> of >>>>> commits for those packages and add them in the report. Examples of > APIs >>> we >>>>> could use: >>>>> ** https://api.github.com/repos/xwiki/xwiki-platform/commits? >>>>> since=2018-05-07T00:00:00Z&until=2018-05-10T00:00:00Z (there’s a path >>>>> parameter that could be used to filter but I don’t think it’ll work >>>>> ** https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/compare/master@ >>>>> %7B2018-05-07%7D...master@%7B2018-05-10%7D (the committers/authors > need >>>>> to be extracted from the HTML which is a bit fragile) >>>>> * Add a step in the Release process to ensure that the global TPC has >>> not >>>>> been lowered. This would be a way to ensure we pay attention to that > and >>>>> fix it when we lower it. We would need to tune this to find something >>> that >>>>> helps keep the TPC increasing while not putting too much pressure at > the >>>>> same time on the release date. It doesn’t have to be in the release >>> process >>>>> but we need some checkpoint to make sure we look at it and that all > devs >>>>> fix the tests when they lower the global TPC, or at the very least > that >>> an >>>>> analysis is done in case where it’s hard to keep the TPC (for example, >>>>> removing existing code that had a lot of tests will lower the TPC ;)). >>>>> >>>>> WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> As a dev, would you be willing to pay attention to not lower the > global >>>>> TPC and work to fix it when it happens? >>> >>> @Marius: what about this question? Would you be ok with it? :) >>> >> >> Sure. > > ok cool > > Thanks > -Vincent > >> >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -Vincent