maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
Subject making docs and tests suck less
Date Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:10:53 GMT
This is not too long, and important. Please read.

I've just spent some time discussing this on users@, and felt it was
time to bring it here to look at the practical steps going forward.

Basically, I think we've all known for a long time that both need work.
There was a big push around 2.0 but it fizzled out afterwards.

I don't want to focus on what we are missing now - we can address that
with what is already in place. I also want to put aside the
documentation and testing efforts that are already under way as they've
been taken into consideration. What I want to focus on is going forward
- new work. I think we need to change the culture. I realise this is
hard given the timing because there isn't a lot of new work going on -
because we're all doing bug fixes, docs and testing! - but hopefully
because of this it will be apparent why it is important to do them as we go.

I've been trying to push for this for a long time, but haven't lived up
to it myself which is one reason why it fails. I hate hypocrisy so can't
really call other people on it (though I probably do anyway), and it
requires everyone to buy in.

So, I've committed r383963 which emphasises these requirements on patch
contributions:

* Whether it works and does what is intended.
* Whether it fits the spirit of the project.
* Whether it contains tests. It is expected that any patches relating to
functionality will be accompanied by unit tests and/or integration
tests. It is strongly desired (and will be requested) for bug fixes too,
but will not be the basis for not applying it. At a bare minimum, the
change should not decrease the amount of automated test coverage.
* Whether it contains documentation. All new functionality needs to be
documented for users, even if it is very rough for someone to expand on
later. While rough is acceptable, incomplete is not.

In the following, I'll discuss a technical veto. That's a -1 that means
that the issue needs to be resolved before a release can occur. It
doesn't mean someone rolls it back immediately (though a release manager
may if it blocks a branch being released). It also doesn't mean anything
negative about the committer in question, and it's important we keep it
that way so that people aren't afraid to contribute or to call people on
theese things.

So my questions are, can we institute the following:

* new functionality without automated test coverage can and should be
technically vetoed. We can measure this with code coverage tools, and
the measure will be that the % does not decline. It will actually break
the build, being an automatic technical veto :)

* new functionality without documentation can and should be technically
vetoed. We can't really measure this with tools, so need to be vigilant
on it ourselves. We also need to be understanding that docs may follow
the code once it is finished, so we should use JIRA to track it (keep
the original ticket open until documented, or create a new, blocking issue).

* new code without javadoc/code documentation can be technically vetoed.
I'm less tied to this one, though for public facing APIs I think Javadoc
is imperative. It may be that we can use Checkstyle to enforce this to a
degree.

* code that doesn't meet current metrics can and should be technically
vetoed. Again, we should set these up to fail the build, using
Checkstyle, PMD and Clirr.

Of course, I'll incorporate this into the dev process after some discussion.

Thoughts?

- Brett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org


Mime
View raw message