On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Adi Roiban <adi@roiban.ro> wrote:
I would prefer to see the coverage reports for tests, even if we don't enforce 100% coverage. Is a quick way to check that the test is executed on at least one builder.
I think this is definitely desirable.
We are preaching the Ultimate Quality Development System (UQDS) (tm) but [...]
Reading through https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/wiki/UltimateQualityDevelopmentSystem it doesn't actually say anything about linters or code coverage or warnings. That isn't t to say that the things you suggest are not valuable, just that calling a process that doesn't enforce all of those things absolutely all the time as "Almost Ultimate Quality Development System" is doing a disservice to the idea. I'll admit that I haven't read that as closely as I should, but re-reading it now, I see: "A reviewer reviews the completed work, and provides feedback: at least one good thing about the work, at least one area that needs improvement, and a judgement as to whether the good qualities ultimately outweigh the bad, i.e. whether the branch should be merged." which explicitly allows for imperfections in the code, as long as there is an overall improvement.
[...] that test code is a 2nd class citizen [...]
It isn't necessarily that test code is a second class citizen, but the purpose of the code is different that implementation code, so the trade-offs that make sense in each context might not be the same. -- Tom