Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E99ED088 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:30:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 96199 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 2012 02:30:51 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 96162 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 2012 02:30:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 96138 invoked by uid 99); 22 Nov 2012 02:30:50 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:30:50 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com designates 66.165.176.89 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.165.176.89] (HELO SMTP.CITRIX.COM) (66.165.176.89) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:30:44 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.83,297,1352073600"; d="scan'208";a="45361638" Received: from sjcpmailmx01.citrite.net ([10.216.14.74]) by FTLPIPO01.CITRIX.COM with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 22 Nov 2012 02:30:22 +0000 Received: from SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net ([10.216.4.72]) by SJCPMAILMX01.citrite.net ([10.216.14.74]) with mapi; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:30:22 -0800 From: Sudha Ponnaganti To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org" Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:30:18 -0800 Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] QA/Testing focus on 4.1 Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] QA/Testing focus on 4.1 Thread-Index: Ac3IT1Qmxq0TLaQASd++YxiFaF+e3wAB0RzKAAClPpA= Message-ID: <7914B38A4445B34AA16EB9F1352942F1012F1277CE0A@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> References: , <7A92FF96DF135843B4B608FB576BFC3E012DA111F9D6@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> In-Reply-To: <7A92FF96DF135843B4B608FB576BFC3E012DA111F9D6@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org If defect fixes include unit tests, some legacy code can be covered.=20 -----Original Message----- From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 6:18 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] QA/Testing focus on 4.1 From: David Nalley [david@gnsa.us] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 5:17 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] QA/Testing focus on 4.1 > is useful. (But of course, having a set of tests to confirm that the=20 > refactoring didn't break anything should be a prerequisite to making=20 > that sort of change! I was thinking the same thing when reading Chiradeeps review on Min's patch= . We should start with a set of tests that pass cleanly with the current code= before trying changes. > Anyone have other ideas about how to prioritize unit test writing? I think the idea above is good - as well as requiring it for any refactorin= g in general. Animesh> For prioritizing unit test writing, all new code should have good = unit test coverage. Full unit test coverage is possible if we adopt TDD. Fo= r legacy code we should guard it with unit test overtime based on how criti= cal the code is for best ROI. Whenver we refactor or change legacy code we = should try to put as much unit test as possible. --David