[vtk-developers] vtkPlane non-static wrappers

[Dave Partyka]

My 2 cents would be that if the coverage is not already 100% for these
methods then please add the test. If they are redundant then I would agree
with Will.

The point I would make about coverage for VTK is that it has been dropping
down into the 60% range. I've been told that VTK once sported 80%+ coverage.
If tests are real unit tests that test functionality and provide coverage
then they should be included. If you're looking for tests to create, take a
look here. There are 100+ files with 0% to 40% coverage. ;-)

http://www.cdash.org/CDash/viewCoverage.php?buildid=529419

Something else to note: The parallel testing feature of ctest makes large
numbers of tests much less of an issue. On amber10 with parallel testing on
it takes just under 5 minutes to run 744 tests. If run serially the same
machine takes 25 minutes to do the same tests.



On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:37 AM, David Doria
<daviddoria+vtk at gmail.com<daviddoria%2Bvtk at gmail.com>
> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Will Schroeder <will.schroeder at kitware.com
> > wrote:
>
>> David-
>>
>> Looking at the code it seems that vtkPlane::IntersectWithLine assumes a
>> unit normal.
>>
>> There are several ways to determine where code is being called/tested
>> from. Grep works, admittedly brute force but effective. Or use a debugger
>> and set a break point at a particular function to see where it is invoked.
>> Fancier methods exist, I'll leave it to the better developers to describe.
>>
>> While I think it's great that you are considering adding tests, remember
>> that every test takes time to run, meaning that the developer's time to make
>> changes, test and check in code increases. Therefore we are optimally
>> looking for a minimal set of tests (and minimal data) to cover the entire
>> code base. Several years ago Ken Martin (and others of the community) went
>> through the exercise of removing extraneous tests and data because it took
>> way too long to run the test suite.
>>
>> Will
>>
>>
> I agree that the tests should not be extraneous. However, introducing new
> functions means introducing new tests, right?
>
> The two possibilities are:
>
> 1) Find where vtkPlane is currently being tested and add tests for the new
> functions there
> 2) add TestPlane.cxx
>
> Were you saying that more testing code is time consuming? Or the number of
> actual tests is what is time consuming? I.e. if (2) is chosen, is that
> significantly worse than (1)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.vtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/vtk-developers/attachments/20100202/d4c91e3f/attachment.html>