Test coverage is 18.4%
ahdevans at gmail.com
Fri Feb 12 22:05:52 UTC 2010
The biggest problem I've found trying to go back and fill in unit tests is
you can either cover the obvious things that won't break unless there are
API changes, but the type of stuff that more often breaks can't often be
deduced from the code (not to mention you can't find existing bugs when the
implementation is your spec.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Max Kanat-Alexander <mkanat at bugzilla.org>wrote:
> 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
> method of QA at the moment.
> The nice part about the Selenium tests is that they make sure that
> 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,
> 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.
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the developers