Re: revised code coverage requirement
Hello Krzysztof,toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Please find my comments inline.
Is it possible to wait a little longer before agreeing on this requirement? Or do we have an urgency in deciding today -- in such a case, Krzysztof's comments lead me to delay the use of Sonar until we have a solid plan.
From: Krzysztof Opasiak <k.opasiak@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:10 PM
To: Close, Pierre <pierre.close@...>; ZWARICO, AMY <az9121@...>; Pawlak Paweł 3 - Korpo <Pawel.Pawlak3@...>; onap-seccom@...
Subject: Re: [Onap-seccom] revised code coverage requirement
On 30.10.2019 19:24, Pierre Close wrote:
Amy,We would need a clear definition of the new code. Is a change in currently existing class a new code or only newly created classes? Is new function withing a class a new code?
[PC]: Agreed. That's what I was suggesting in my comment above.
Saying that we will just use the metric that the tool provides without any explanation to the community is not a good thing I believe
[PC]: I think we need to dig further into the capabilities of the tool and verify how we can use the metrics in a proper and meaningful way, otherwise it won't be of any use, as you mention.
As far as I can see (please correct me if I'm wrong) the tool gives you only the current status of the code and diff since last run. What we would need is a dashboard as bitergia where you can select any arbitrary period of time and check the results
[PC]: I was under the impression that you could choose different versions to compare between... Now, your comments being valid, I propose that we take some time to further analyze what we can do, build (if possible) meaningful metrics and dashboards (as you mention), and then decide what route to take -- I know the timing is against us, but throwing all this into the community without further research is not constructive, so I support your statements. Would you agree with this approach?
Samsung R&D Institute Poland