Open Stack

On 20/04/15 18:01, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Boris Pavlovic's message of 2015-04-18 18:30:02 -0700:
>> Hi stackers,
>>
>> Code coverage is one of the very important metric of overall code quality
>> especially in case of Python. It's quite important to ensure that code is
>> covered fully with well written unit tests.
>>
>> One of the nice thing is coverage job.
>>
>> In Rally we are running it against every check which allows us to get
>> detailed information about
>> coverage before merging patch:
>> http://logs.openstack.org/84/175084/1/check/rally-coverage/c61d5e1/cover/
>>
>> This helped Rally core team to automate checking that new/changed code is
>> covered by unit tests and we raised unit test coverage from ~78% to almost
>> 91%.
>>
>> But it produces few issues:
>> 1) >9k nitpicking - core reviewers have to put -1 if something is not
>> covered by unit tests
>> 2) core team scaling issues - core team members spend a lot of time just
>> checking that whole code is covered by unit test and leaving messages like
>> this should be covered by unit test
>> 3) not friendly community - it's not nice to get on your code -1 from
>> somebody that is asking just to write unit tests
>> 4) coverage regressions - sometimes we accidentally accept patches that
>> reduce coverage
>>
>> To resolve this issue I improved a bit coverage job in Rally project, and
>> now it compares master vs master + patch coverage. If new coverage is less
>> than master job is marked as -1.
>>
>> Here is the patch for job enhancement:
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174645/
>>
>> Here is coverage job in action:
>> patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174677/
>> job message
>> http://logs.openstack.org/77/174677/4/check/rally-coverage/ba49c90/console.html#_2015-04-17_15_57_17_695
>>
> 
> The link to the important line was key, because without it, just clicking
> through from the review was incomprehensible to me. Can I suggest some
> whitespace or bordering so we can see where the error is easily?
> 
> Anyway, interesting thoughts from everyone. I have to agree with those
> that say this isn't reliable enough to make it vote. Non-voting would be
> interesting though, if it gave a clear score difference, and a diff of
> the two coverage reports. I think this is more useful as an automated
> pointer to how things probably should be, but sometimes it's entirely
> o-k to regress this number a few points.
> 
> Also graphing this over time in a post-commit job seems like a no-brainer.


Designate has started doing this - it is still a WIP as we continue
tweaking settings, but we have a dashboard here -

http://sonar.designate-ci.com/

> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>