Test coverage is 18.4%
mkanat at bugzilla.org
Fri Feb 12 21:54:27 UTC 2010
On 02/11/2010 10:13 PM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> and the total test coverage of Bugzilla is 18.4%
Yeah, just to say again what others have said, this is a problem, for sure.
> Are there tests other than those in t/*?
There are the Selenium tests that Byron pointed out--those are our main
method of QA at the moment.
The nice part about the Selenium tests is that they make sure that the
really have "full coverage" unless we tested those as well.
Having unit tests for every single method and function in Bugzilla
would be great, though. The fact is, the lack of TDD in our development
process is one of the things that makes the review process so difficult.
But the number of tests that we'd have to write to truly have full
coverage is also something that's nearly overwhelming for us, because we
just don't have the current manpower to do it.
If somebody wanted to work on getting Bugzilla fully unit-tested, I'd
be behind it 100% of the way. (Note that to get really full coverage on
the Perl code, we'd have to move all the .cgi code into Controller
modules, but that's something that I've want to do anyway.)
Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Perl Services. Everything Else, too.
More information about the developers