Unit tests coverage - what about rising the bar up to 99,999% ;)

[Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>]

Hi,

Just a thought that sprung to my mind. I must admit that I haven't
followed the progress on 1.1 branch carefully enough and most likely
lost track. I'm going to get up to speed with the latest whistles and
bells and thought to take a look at the unit tests and how much we've
got them so far.

Has anyone looked at the test unit coverage? Possibly using clover or
any other alternative (I should know about)? Is there anyone out there
that thought about it too and meant to help out? Please speak up!

Jacek

-- 
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl

Re: Unit tests coverage - what about rising the bar up to 99,999% ;)

[John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>]

Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> Just before v1.0, the % of code we had covered in our unit test were
> about 30%. I don't know expect that to have gone up significantly
> higher since then.
>
> Check out this site -
> http://developer.spikesource.com/testresults/index.jsp?show=component-results&category=all&comp-id=197086#pkgtest 
>
>
> But I like where you are going with this. To make the product strong
> and robust, I would like  every single individual module to have it's
> own unit test suite. And once we have assembled the modules, we should
> subject the final distribution for system level tests. This is where
> the itests framework (currently waiting in the sandbox) can come in
> handy.
>
> Ideal candidates for the system level tests would be on the lines of
> tests mentioned in here -
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1860
>
> That is what I  had thought about this and am willing to help in this
> regard (soon after we move to m2).
Looks like there is a new version of the clover plugin for m2 about to 
be released.  The historical reporting sounds interesting.

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=turbine-maven-dev&m=114899858711998&w=2

I am assuming we are talking about doing this in trunk so we can use m2?

John
>
> Cheers
> Prasad
>
> On 6/2/06, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just a thought that sprung to my mind. I must admit that I haven't
>> followed the progress on 1.1 branch carefully enough and most likely
>> lost track. I'm going to get up to speed with the latest whistles and
>> bells and thought to take a look at the unit tests and how much we've
>> got them so far.
>>
>> Has anyone looked at the test unit coverage? Possibly using clover or
>> any other alternative (I should know about)? Is there anyone out there
>> that thought about it too and meant to help out? Please speak up!
>>
>> Jacek
>>
>> -- 
>> Jacek Laskowski
>> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
>>
>

Re: Unit tests coverage - what about rising the bar up to 99,999% ;)

[Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>]

Just before v1.0, the % of code we had covered in our unit test were
about 30%. I don't know expect that to have gone up significantly
higher since then.

Check out this site -
http://developer.spikesource.com/testresults/index.jsp?show=component-results&category=all&comp-id=197086#pkgtest

But I like where you are going with this. To make the product strong
and robust, I would like  every single individual module to have it's
own unit test suite. And once we have assembled the modules, we should
subject the final distribution for system level tests. This is where
the itests framework (currently waiting in the sandbox) can come in
handy.

Ideal candidates for the system level tests would be on the lines of
tests mentioned in here -
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1860

That is what I  had thought about this and am willing to help in this
regard (soon after we move to m2).

Cheers
Prasad

On 6/2/06, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a thought that sprung to my mind. I must admit that I haven't
> followed the progress on 1.1 branch carefully enough and most likely
> lost track. I'm going to get up to speed with the latest whistles and
> bells and thought to take a look at the unit tests and how much we've
> got them so far.
>
> Has anyone looked at the test unit coverage? Possibly using clover or
> any other alternative (I should know about)? Is there anyone out there
> that thought about it too and meant to help out? Please speak up!
>
> Jacek
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
>