launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

["Francis J. Lacoste" <francis.lacoste@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On November 2, 2010, Gary Poster wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Deryck Hodge wrote:
> > FWIW, while the pain of Windmill has been acute lately, I don't recall
> > a month without some form of Windmill pain since I've been working on
> > Launchpad.
> 
> Point taken.
> 
> I'm still not convinced myself, and would much prefer the
> integration-tests-for-deployment story, but I'm just a vote.
> 
> > I feel the same about page tests.
> 
> Something I should have said in my first reply is that discarding the
> Windmill tests worries me; discarding the page tests frightens me, unless
> the unit test coverage is much, much higher than I believe it to be.  I
> think these two parts of your proposal should be separate.
> 
> Perhaps a reasonable next step for the page test part of your proposal
> would be to run the tests, collecting line-coverage statistics with and
> without the pagetests?  There may be other options to collect this, but 
> the --coverage option described in the bin/test --help output would be one
> approach.  If the unit tests alone have similar coverage to the unit tests
> plus pagetests, that would be at least a data point to console me.
> 

I don't know if things have changed, but last time I tried to run ./bin/test 
with --coverage, I OOM my laptop (4Gigs of RAM). So we might have a problem 
here.

-- 
Francis J. Lacoste
francis.lacoste@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.