[Insight-developers] MeshIO: Low coverage uncovers errors

[Alexandre GOUAILLARD]

yep,

my fault for not catching that during the review.

Bill, what are you doing the week end between miccai and the
washington meeting? I m in transit between toronto and bethesda and I
could stop by troy/albany and have a short sprint with you (and luis?)
over the week end. We could include this in the agenda.

Alex.

On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:
> wanlin,
>
> It is not your fault. We should have caught this during the gerrit review
> process.
>
> Bill
>
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 12:02 AM, wanlin <wanlinzhu at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Bill
>>     First i am sorry that i didn't read the new code contribution policy
>> before i push the patch to ITK gerrit. To be honest, only the VTK legacy
>> file format was used regularly so i provide more tests (Ascii, Binary, with
>> point normals, with point scalar). I should have comprehensive tests and
>> conduct converge tests for all the supported formats as well. I will improve
>> the patch later. Sorry for this.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> wanlin
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> I am concerned about the lack of test coverage in newly merged code. I
>>> decided to look at the newly merged MeshIO classes.
>>>
>>> Topic: http://review.source.kitware.com/#change,2422
>>>
>>> The topic had 7 reviewers (I was one of them).  It seems that it was
>>> approved because it compiled and all of the author's tests passed. However,
>>> the code coverage is very low. I never looked at the code before the merge
>>> (my bad).
>>>
>>> I looked at the OBJMeshIO class, since I am familiar with the Wavefront
>>> obj format. The class had very low coverage. I modified the input file so
>>> that it contained point normals. The code failed to parse the file properly.
>>> The current topic parses the file properly, but does not populate the mesh
>>> point data correctly.
>>>
>>> New topic: http://review.source.kitware.com/#change,2641
>>>
>>> I am concerned that the MeshIO classes have not been validated.
>>>
>>> This illustrates a shortcoming in our current process. Code is getting
>>> merged that has low test coverage. Also, some results are difficult to
>>> validate.
>>>
>>> I will continue to look at these classes and fix the formats that I am
>>> familiar with. I hope others can help.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>