@Uri
May I ask, whats the idea behind running a random subset of tests only?
Wouldn't a Monte Carlo approach be highly unreliable, e.g. lure ppl into
thinking everything is ok, but in reality the random test selection did
not catch affected code paths? I mean for tests - its all about
reliability, isn't it? And 200 out of 6k tests sounds like running often
into false positive test results, esp. if your test base is skewed
towards features not being affected by current changes.
I think this could still work with a better reliability / changed code
coverage, if the abstraction is a bit more complicated, e.g.:
- introduce grouping flags on tests - on module, class or even single
method scope
- on test run, declare what flags should be tested (runs all test with
given flags)
- alternatively use appropriate flags reflecting your code changes +
your test counter on top, but now it selects from the flagged tests with
higher probability to run affected tests
Ah well, just some quick thoughts on that...
Cheers,
Jörg
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django
developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/0138232b-4b8f-4a7a-99b0-67c0702f9ce8%40netzkolchose.de.
