From dev-return-94-apmail-ripple-dev-archive=ripple.apache.org@ripple.incubator.apache.org Fri Jan 4 19:18:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-ripple-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-ripple-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0B25E743 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 19:18:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 91911 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2013 19:18:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ripple-dev-archive@ripple.apache.org Received: (qmail 91878 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2013 19:18:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ripple.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 91870 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jan 2013 19:18:57 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:18:57 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gtanner@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.54 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.54] (HELO mail-qa0-f54.google.com) (209.85.216.54) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:18:52 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id j15so144841qaq.6 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:18:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=KP4e5oeo1lkr+GHl+Z5Afl5EY5Aatg590+2CkHxoEPo=; b=lbpX4p2iwEe2WnrW3wS/zDNFT4nzFbsnyGkQwh7IHs8jJoVmvFLUdI1touK832JbFX 2Bh+T1ON1ww2LLvVoZuWGuL4sW/umB/XTJrPoX8PkEtO0Jo5cCmXgsgFzJxI+O/it0MS 99lsddPAZpA7fkHVIa2Ig3fDLaJ9ysUXDi/urhzKa01tM/LGOhfvtQdtln5b9CIoQxYM NT7Yy5ELRzvgfIcKuOMX4kyNkQHsqgYOZ9baCQgxxGWsEBQxa4lJoG6o84ge6ghDR0r3 1Eq6+0pXkLlWEFTi5rJ6gPNNOx4RRH/1gzEAjFHFSBAAa3GMBBsUoOxFEvdp/QhrLmmT L1hw== Received: by 10.229.234.158 with SMTP id kc30mr7925396qcb.52.1357327111833; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:18:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.49.58.179 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 11:18:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Gord Tanner Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 14:18:11 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Test Coverage Tooling in Ripple To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c928a95848a804d27b58f4 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001636c928a95848a804d27b58f4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I have been wanting code coverage forever +1 On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Filip Maj wrote: > Cool stuff Brent! > > +1 > > On 1/4/13 10:46 AM, "Dan Silivestru" wrote: > > >I'm 100% behind having some sort of code coverage solution in place. > >Simply > >counting the number of assertions we have doesn't give us as much > >confidence as I would like to have. > > > >I do somewhat disagree that the node tests are more important the the > >browser tests. I would at a minimum put them on par since Ripple does run > >in the browser :-) But I think starting with code coverage for node only > >is > >a very good first step. > > > >So... long way of me saying... +1 :) > > > > > >On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Brent Lintner > >wrote: > > > >> Hey all, > >> > >> So, I have been using a (recently) new project called CoverJS in one of > >>my > >> personal (side projects), and I am finding it really useful and easy to > >> use/setup when it comes to test code coverage in JS. > >> > >> https://npmjs.org/package/coverjs > >> > >> My proposal is to add support for test code coverage to Ripple (as test > >> coverage is something I've really wanted to see go into the development > >> workflow of Ripple). It is still in some early stages, but I think it > >>would > >> be a great project to adopt (even initially) as the code coverage > >>tooling > >> for this project. If it it needs to be changed, it should not be too > >> difficult to rip out or replace, and this does not affect the normal > >>way of > >> running tests. > >> > >> I.e. Check it out in my fork (first and only commit) --> > >> https://github.com/brentlintner/Ripple-UI/tree/test.cov > >> > >> Since I had already done the setup in my side project, it was quite > >>easy to > >> get it working in Ripple (although I had to wait to submit it until an > >> upstream bug was fixed in CoverJS). The only pitfall here is it > >>currently > >> only works when running the tests with the nodejs runner (vs the browser > >> based test runner, which, IMO is less primary than the node runner, > >> anyways). However, it is still very useful when testing (even after > >>using > >> it a few times). > >> > >> Thoughts? Yay/Nay? > >> > >> I was hoping to issue a Pull Request soon (if it is a welcomed idea). > >>:-) > >> > >> -- > >> Brent > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >Dan Silivestru > >+1 (519) 589-3624 > > --001636c928a95848a804d27b58f4--