On 26/04/18 19:02, Daniel Kinzler wrote: Given that I've done similar (not a new class, but a bunch of functions to an existing test-free class) and had it not complain, quite possibly! Is weird, but given that the class in question is terrifying soup, I'm glad it didn't complain there because I wouldn't even know where to begin adding coverage. -I

If you haven't checked out https://doc.wikimedia.org/cover/, you should! You can see what code is covered (and by which tests) and what code is not covered if you want to generally improve test coverage. Two things: 1) A coverage report like that, instead of just numbers showing the relative change, would make it much easier to figure out what needs test coverage but doesn't have it when submitting a patch to Gerrit. 2) From looking at the coverage reports, a pattern I've seen, at least in the generally well-covered code I work with most, is that failure checks are the general kind of code most likely to not be covered by tests, especially the cases that are never supposed to happen, like something being unexpectedly null, empty, or undefined. My new unofficial (and somewhat inefficient) plan is to cover what I can when I write new code, but expect test coverage to sometimes decrease. Once the code is merged, and the test coverage report updates, I can find the specific code branches that aren't covered and add more tests. It's not efficient, but it does let you ratchet up the coverage over time much more easily than before. —Trey Trey Jones Sr. Software Engineer, Search Platform Wikimedia Foundation On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Daniel Kinzler <daniel.kinzler(a)wikimedia.de