db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Monitoring/improving code coverage (was Re: code coverage results for trunk - svn revision no 390306)
Date Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:38:51 GMT
I think the model we are following with functionality regressions works 
well.  We are not necessarily preventing future checkins unless things 
are perceived to be Out of Hand by one or more committers.

I think the same could be done for code coverage regressions.  If a new 
chunk of code is checked in and the numbers drop way way down for a 
given module, I think that is cause for concern and a committer could 
reasonably insist that the feature is not sufficiently tested and back 
out the change, or at least block any future checkins in that area until 
enough tests are provided.

So I propose having a flag raised when numbers go say 20% below current 
baseline for a given package, and then it is up to the committers to 
decide what action is necessary.

David

Kathey Marsden wrote:
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
> 
> 
>>In previous lives, I've seen code-coverage metrics generated on, say,
>>a monthly basis and used as a release barrier. I do not think they are
>>appropriate as a barrier to checkin.
>>
> 
> I think since we seem to be going for very long release cycles instead
> of the release early, release often model, release barriers are not very
> effective for maintaining quality on the trunk.  Also in open source,
> developers come and go so the wait until release model doesn't tend to
> work that well in that regard either.   If Linux could release a new
> kernel twice a day,   I tend to think that the trunk should be "ready
> for release" at any time for completed functionality and even
> incremental functionality could be covered.
> 
> Kathey
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message