Test coverage is 18.4%

Gabor Szabo szabgab at gmail.com
Sun Feb 14 09:57:04 UTC 2010

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:04 AM, David Marshall <dmarshal at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> On 2/12/10 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.
> 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%!
> At Yahoo!, where we've been putting a lot of effort into continuous
> integration, I use t/* as a "commit test" - committing to the repository
> triggers an automatic run of t/*.  The idea is to do a quick check that a
> commit hasn't horked anything - the Perl compiles, etc.
> 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.
> We have our own Selenium tests written as well, but I haven't included them
> in our continuous integration implementation.

Do I understand correctly that you have your own test suite in Yahoo!
testing Bugzilla?
If so why is it not part of the standard set of test of Bugzilla?


More information about the developers mailing list