openstack team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: [OpenStack][Nova] Minimum required code coverage per file
Hey - funny story - in responding to Justin I re-read the original email
and realized it was asking for a static low number, which we _can_ do -
at least project-wide. We can't do per-file yet, nor can we fail on a
downward inflection... and I've emailed Justin about that.
If we have consensus on gating on project-wide threshold, I can
certainly add adding that to the gate to the todo list. (If we decide to
do that, I'd really like to make that be openstack-wide rather than just
nova... although I imagine it might take a few weeks to come to
consensus on what the project-wide low number should be.
Current numbers on project-wide lines numbers:
Perhaps we get nova and glance up to 80 and then set the threshold for 80?
Also, turns out we're not running this on the client libs...
On 04/25/2012 03:53 PM, Justin Santa Barbara wrote:
> If you let me know in a bit more detail what you're looking for, I can
> probably whip something up. Email me direct?
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Monty Taylor <mordred@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:mordred@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> On 04/24/2012 10:08 PM, Lorin Hochstein wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >> I would like to propose a minimum required code coverage level per
> >> file in Nova. Say 80%. This would mean that any new feature/file
> >> should only be accepted if it has over 80% code coverage. Exceptions
> >> to this rule would be allowed for code that is covered by skipped
> >> tests (as long as 80% is reached when the tests are not skipped).
> > I like the idea of looking at code coverage numbers. For any
> > merge proposal, I'd also like to know whether it increases or
> > the overall code coverage of the project. I don't think we should gate
> > on this, but it would be helpful for a reviewer to see that,
> > for larger proposals.
> Yup... Nati requested this a couple of summits ago - main issue is that
> while we run code coverage and use the jenkins code coverage plugin to
> track the coverage numbers, the plugin doesn't fully support this
> particular kind of report.
> HOWEVER - if any of our fine java friends out there want to chat with me
> about adding support to the jenkins code coverage plugin to track and
> report this, I will be thrilled to put it in as a piece of reported
> >> With 193 python files in nova/tests, Nova unit tests produce 85%
> >> overall code coverage (calculated with ./run_test.sh -c ).
> But 23%
> >> of files (125 files) have lower then 80% code coverage (30 tests
> >> skipped on my machine). Getting all files to hit the 80% code
> >> coverage mark should be one of the goals for Folsom.
> > I would really like to see a visualization of the code coverage
> > distribution, in order to help spot the outliers.
> > Along these lines, there's been a lot of work in the software
> > engineering research community about predicting which parts of the
> > are most likely to contain bugs ("fault prone" is a good keyword
> to find
> > this stuff, e.g.: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fault+prone, big
> > names include Nachi Nagappan at MS Research and Elaine Weyuker,
> > of AT&T Research). I would *love* to see some academic researchers try
> > to apply those techniques to OpenStack to help guide QA activities by
> > identifying which parts of the code should get more rigorous testing
> > and review.
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp