Test coverage is 18.4%
mkanat at bugzilla.org
Fri Feb 12 22:49:45 UTC 2010
On 02/12/2010 02:04 PM, David Marshall wrote:
> I don't think it's a problem at all, because the t/* tests were never, as
> far as I am aware, intended to be testing for coverage. I'm rather
> surprised that the number is as high as 18.4%!
They probably weren't intended that way, but I'd like to see them be
more so. Test-Driven Development didn't exist as a popular philosophy
(though it should have been realized as simply a sensible thing to
do...) when the tests were originally written, so they probably just
weren't aimed in that direction.
> We also have a home-grown test suite that we use as a "smoke test" - a
> nightly test that interacts with Bugzilla through apache and a working
> database. It takes about twenty minutes to run at present. That's what I
> want to have 100% coverage. Currently, we're at about 60% or so.
Doesn't that seem like duplicated effort with our own Selenium tests? I
mean, we even had Selenium tests for 2.22, if you wanted to use those.
Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Perl Services. Everything Else, too.
More information about the developers