183
edits
QA:CodeCoverage: Difference between revisions
→Results and Findings
Mnandigama (talk | contribs) |
Mnandigama (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
http://people.mozilla.org/~mnandigama/images/Picture%205.png | http://people.mozilla.org/~mnandigama/images/Picture%205.png | ||
'''This is important ''': We have done a component/module by component/module code coverage Vs Bugs fix analysis. | |||
* In a happy path case, all files should have 100% code coverage | |||
* In a normal path case, all files that have high rate of bugs fixed in them, should have '''HIGH''' code coverage since there are the most active files in terms of change. | |||
* Files that have no change since a long time can have either '''HIGH''' or '''LOW''' coverage in our first iteration since they are not undergoing any change so far. | |||
For a sample module, '''JavaScript Engine''' the code coverage Vs Bug fixes looks like this. | |||
http://people.mozilla.org/~mnandigama/images/covBugs.png | |||
In a bubble chart format , the same can be visualized as follows | |||
http://people.mozilla.org/~mnandigama/images/sample3.png | |||
The '''bigger''' the bubble, the higher it should be and all bubbles should ideally bubble up. | |||
== <FONT COLOR=GREEN>How to instrument the Mozilla Firefox Browser </FONT> == | == <FONT COLOR=GREEN>How to instrument the Mozilla Firefox Browser </FONT> == | ||