Re: [aerogear-dev] Providing Tests with PR's

On 01/31/2013 12:33 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> I want to throw this out to the list for feedback. Something we have been doing for a while now with the jQuery project is to require a unit test(s) for any PR or change committed. This has worked very >> well in two ways. First, it provides a built in way to see the issue being fixed/implemented within the PR. That way, the reviewer doesn't have to build their own test(s) to see if the issue being >> addressed is actually fixed. Second, it helps prevent regressions down the road since more of the code is covered by tests so you know if some change you think is unrelated breaks something that >> fixed days, weeks, years ago. > +1 most OS projects I worked on do that. > (besides for typos and other minor things) > > >> I would like to suggest we make this policy for at least the JS library (since that is the one I review most often) but I believe this policy would be useful across the entire project. Let me know what >> you think. > IMO this is a must, for all the bits. > > Also... I'd strongly vote for supporting an (automated) integration > test suite (against a real server). > Mock testing is OK... but we should never forget about the real environment > > -M If we do this, I'm going to throw out the integration test server should rerun the dependant tests as part of its build too.

> >> Thanks, >> Kris >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev