[openstack-dev] [Nova] Frustrations with review wait times
Matt Riedemann
mriedem at us.ibm.com
Tue Aug 27 18:30:14 UTC 2013
Going back to the original discussion, something I've noticed recently is
the large patches coming through tied to blueprints. In at least a few
cases I've made comments in patches asking them to be broken up to be more
easily digested. The wiki also covers that area:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages#Things_to_avoid_when_creating_commits
Discussing this point in IRC today, I raised one of my primary issues with
reviewing large patches (typically for a blueprint) is how much harder it
makes to verify the code is adequately covered with unit tests.
One thought is it'd be cool if we could get code coverage reports tied to
the patches so we know if a given patch is severely lacking in test
coverage (when it's not obvious).
This was pointed out:
http://logs.openstack.org/5c/5cc63c91d045f7a37136107053f71db1d8edf425/post/nova-coverage/e91683d/cover/
Which is nice and it gives the commit, but when I asked around in
#openstack-infra about it, apparently that's only in post-queue on merged
commits, so doesn't help you with a review. The infra guys said they'd
toyed with doing coverage reports in the check queue but it took too long
(instrumenting the code for coverage added too much time to the check).
However, with the recent push for running parallel tests with testr, it
sounds like it might be worth looking at check queue coverage reports
again which might be a good tool in improving review efficiency. This is
probably something to pursue again after h3.
Thanks,
MATT RIEDEMANN
Advisory Software Engineer
Cloud Solutions and OpenStack Development
Phone: 1-507-253-7622 | Mobile: 1-507-990-1889
E-mail: mriedem at us.ibm.com
3605 Hwy 52 N
Rochester, MN 55901-1407
United States
From: Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com>
To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org,
Date: 08/27/2013 01:19 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Frustrations with review wait
times
On 08/27/2013 01:30 PM, Matt Dietz wrote:
> Good idea!
>
> Only thing I would point out is there are a fair amount of changes,
> especially lately, where code is just moving from one portion of the
> project to another, so there may be cases where someone ends up being
> authoritative over code they don't totally understand.
Right. While some automation can provide some insight, it certainly can
not make any decisions in this area, IMO.
--
Russell Bryant
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130827/7331117f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1851 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130827/7331117f/attachment.gif>
More information about the OpenStack-dev
mailing list