On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 May 2011 21:44, laurent laffont <laurent.laffont@gmail.com> wrote:
Another idea (don't know how hard it is) is to have test coverage + comment coverage in Hudson. Then we can start to consider that dead code = code with no test or no comment.
Laurent, have you tried to run lint rule checker in pharo image?
No - I talk about test coverage, not lint. I don't think lint worth running on a full image. Test coverage is really useful. Indeed, I use test coverage on my projects every day. Lint once a year :) Laurent.
I tried once and if i remember correctly, there are like 30000 notices. Now, what you think, is it possible for any human to visit all of them step by step analyze and then fix the code? It is enormous amount of data (and most of it is just white noise, or insignificant detail). Now how to filter that noise and address the only things which you should take care of? And since we're continuting development, every time you doing an update, this stuff should be revisited, compared and cross-checked again. And we don't have such facility: take image A and B, and compare their lint output. I imagine this would require a quite sophisticated database , with UI on top of that, which will allow you to navigate through these notices mark them as invalid, or fixed etc etc.. What i mean that automated tools is cool. But they cannot solve all our problems: every such issue should be analyzed and considered by developer. Because we're still not yet at the point, where system can reason about itself and automatically improve itself without need of our attention :) If this day will come, then it will be the end of humanity (at least in its current form - homo sapiens sapiens ;)
Laurent.
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.