dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johannes Ring <johannr@xxxxxxxxx>]

FYI: one of the buildbots now generates a code coverage report for
DOLFIN. The report is currently available here:

  http://www.fenicsproject.org/coverage/dolfin/lcov/

Johannes

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Johannes Ring <johannr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Marie E. Rognes <meg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> DOLFIN currently has 7 carefully documented demos and 67 undocumented
>> demos.
>>
>> In theory, we could write careful documentation for the remaining 67
>> demos, and continuously maintain and update the documentation for all
>> 74 demos. Somehow, I do not see this happening. However, I would like
>> to see the demo documentation more complete.
>>
>> So, plan. Evaluate list of demos with eye to the following
>>
>> * What functionality does this demo demonstrate?
>> * Are there other demos that demonstrate the same functionality?
>> * Does this demo demonstrate an important point?
>> * Does this demo illustrate the "best practice" to implement a
>>   feature?
>> * Can we scratch this demo?
>>
>> Example:
>>
>>   We have (at least) 4 stokes demos: stokes-iterative, stokes-mini,
>>   stokes-stabilized, stokes-taylor-hood. All of these illustrate the
>>   use of mixed elements, boundary conditions on mixed elements, use of
>>   mesh functions for marking sub-domains. Of these, I would scratch
>>   all except stokes-iterative.
>>
>> After that I would suggest remove a large amount of demos, and add
>> careful documentation for those remaining.
>>
>> On the other hand, the current demo collection serves a very useful
>> testing purpose. If we scratch a bunch of demos, more functionality
>> will be left untested. One solution would be to replace the scratched
>> demos by more unit tests.
>>
>> However, in order to know which functionality that the demos actually
>> test and which tests that are missing, it would be good to have some
>> kind of code coverage reports. We had that a while back. (I seem to
>> remember that the code coverage was pretty bleak..., so maybe that is
>> why it was removed... ;-)) Could we put that back in with one of the
>> buildbots?
>
> Yes, I will try to get the code coverage reports going again.
>
> Johannes
>
>> Also, note that I'm volunteering for the above tasks (except code
>> coverage reports) ... :-)
>>
>> --
>> Marie
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
>> Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>