Unit testing

[Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org>]

Hi!

Just wanted to bring this up.

When reviewing pull requests, I think we should start taking special
care of looking at the unit tests. There *must* be unit tests for the
changes and they *must* be complete (not only testing the happy path,
specially in expect tests).

We should ask for all missing tests during the review and not merge
PRs without them, and I really think we should stop allowing the "will
add the tests in an upcoming PR" practice.

There are providers with many live tests failing, which gives us an
idea of their health, but if the code base grows without an
appropriate unit test suite, we'll see a negative impact soon.

It might require some more review time (contributors might not know
some test classes already exist, or how to add them), but it is worth
spending the time to have a complete test suite.


I.

Re: Unit testing

[Shrinand Javadekar <sh...@maginatics.com>]

+1 for more unit tests.

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Andrew Phillips <ap...@qrmedia.com> wrote:
>> We should ask for all missing tests during the review and not merge
>> PRs without them, and I really think we should stop allowing the "will
>> add the tests in an upcoming PR" practice.
>
>
> +1 to that. Is there some way to add this to the review dashboard, e.g. by
> looking for changes/additions in src/test/*?
>
> Thanks for bringing this up, Ignasi!
>
> ap

Re: Unit testing

[Andrew Phillips <ap...@qrmedia.com>]

> We should ask for all missing tests during the review and not merge
> PRs without them, and I really think we should stop allowing the "will
> add the tests in an upcoming PR" practice.

+1 to that. Is there some way to add this to the review dashboard,  
e.g. by looking for changes/additions in src/test/*?

Thanks for bringing this up, Ignasi!

ap