Thanks, but I'm looking for something that is more specific to MediaWiki and that commits development teams to specific, standardized, and transparently measured quality metrics as products advance or regress in their path to production release.
Pine
On 2014-09-21 09:51, Pine W wrote:
Thanks, but I'm looking for something that is more specific to MediaWiki and that commits development teams to specific, standardized, and transparently measured quality metrics as products advance or regress in their path to production release.
Yes I would be interested to know about that, too. In case there are none yet:
Any ideas what those metrics should be?
The only really useful one I can come up is open bugs that are marked with keyword "code-update-regression" after a certain amount of time of it being available for public testing. (Currently there are 60 of those, not all of them on Wikimedia sites: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?keywords=code-update-regression&a... )
These are more for software maintenance quality than directly for end user quality: Code coverage of unit tests over a certain percentage. Amount of use cases (or user stories) that have integration tests that can be run directly against an unmodified installation over a certain percentage. Perhaps certain limits on metrics generated by tools like phpdepend. Perhaps being clean of certain phpmd or PHP_CodeSniffer tests failing.
Is there interest in committing to only deploying in production if any metrics are met? (Obviously there needs to be a way to have a grace period for code that was already on the way to deployment before that was decided.) For the software quality metrics it probably makes sense to already enforce them before merge instead of before deployment.
I know requiring unit tests was discussed in the past, anyone remembers where and what the result was?
Hey,
I know requiring unit tests was discussed in the past, anyone remembers
where and what the result was?
The most cohesive discussion on this I can remember was in the thread "Architecture Guidelines: Writing Testable Code". https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-June/thread.html
There was quite some discussion about testing at the time in general, though that was quite scattered communication wise. This has presumably resulted in people being more motivated to enhance the testing infrastructure, learn about testing, and of course write tests. AFAIK there has never been general agreement on that writing tests for most of the code one writes is a good idea though.
Cheers
-- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org