You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I think the code coverage checks which are part of several tests (if not all) just burn energy and are mostly useless. Nobody cares about the noise, and the project calibrated the threshold just for the status quo. I think there are other means of judging the quality of contributions (and amount of coverage was never a criterion).
Disadvantages:
Noise (if not e-mail notification) about missing the threshold by "0.06%".
Upload errors from time to time for external services like Codecov.io.
Contributions cannot be judged by percentage of coverage.
Useless (calibrated for the status quo).
Alternatives:
Consider runtime decision instead of compile-time decision if there is additional/user benefit.
Enforce documentation of preprocessor symbols like CP2K does (or whitelist).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@hfp thanks for bringing up this discussion. I think it is still relevant, let's keep the issue open. Personally, I use to check the coverage, but I agree with you we need to revisit it...
I think the code coverage checks which are part of several tests (if not all) just burn energy and are mostly useless. Nobody cares about the noise, and the project calibrated the threshold just for the status quo. I think there are other means of judging the quality of contributions (and amount of coverage was never a criterion).
Disadvantages:
Alternatives:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: