<quote name="Gabriel Wicke" date="2015-09-03" time="17:03:03
-0700">
In the services team, we found that prominent coverage
metrics are a very
powerful motivator for keeping tests in order. We have set up 'voting'
coverage reports, which fail the overall tests if coverage falls, and make
it easy to check which lines aren't covered yet (via coveralls). In all
repositories we enabled this for, test coverage has since stabilized around
80-90%.
We (RelEng), too, are interested in this. Given the nature of our
projects we'll probably need to start this on a case-by-case basis,
(un)fortunately. :)
There's two parts to this (as I see it): informational and enforcement.
Informational:
* "Generate code coverage reports for extensions"
**
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T71685
* Add ^^^ to "QA Health scoreboard"
**
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108768
Enforcement:
* What Gabriel described above.
** There's no one ticket for tracking this cross repos right now, I'll
create one...
**
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T111546
Greg
PS: I didn't mean to, but I forked this thread across wikitech-l and qa
lists (my bcc to wikitech-l didn't make it through mailman, I don't
think). See the other sub-thread on adding @integration test runs on wmf
deploy branch creation at:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/qa/2015-September/thread.html
--
| Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
| identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |