[Ns-developers] roadmap for ns3.2.1
tomh at tomh.org
Tue Oct 7 21:26:19 PDT 2008
Raj Bhattacharjea wrote:
> During our last conference call, we decided to do a ns3.2.1 release to
> address some of the major issues with ns3.2. Primarily, what we found
> was that due to a lack of testing and code coverage, some things
> stopped working between ns3.1 and ns3.2. The following is a list of
> issues that I have identified for potential inclusion in this
> incremental release.
> 1. According to http://www.nsnam.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=370
> there are extra, private headers installed on a system when you
> install ns-3, but removing these cause --python-scan problems. This
> might not be user visible though, so I wanted to solicit some more
> discussion here.
I'm not sure this one impacts users too much.
> 2. In http://www.nsnam.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=371 it appears
> that an example program has undergone a regression (and since it
> wasn't a part of the regression framework, it wasn't caught).
> 3. In http://groups.google.com/group/ns-3-users/browse_thread/thread/b676c5d2bd09ef46
> another example program was reported to contain a mistake. This needs
> to be fixed.
> These are the specifics that seem to qualify. I think the metric for
> determining whether or not a fix should be in ns3.2.1 is "is something
> end-user visible, completely broken, and fixable".
We also discussed the issue that Sam raised (need for nsc to download a
tarball), and also bug 348 (regression will not run when offline).
Another one that I will try to repair soon is 362, which Gustavo found
does not interact well with wifi.
> In addition, we had spoken about increasing unit test coverage of the
> codebase. I looked at the lcov report from running our unit tests,
> and it seems to me that the following portions of our code base
> require more testing.
> I would like to ask that the respective maintainers of these pieces of
> code have a look and propose some ideas for how to increase code
> coverage in the unit tests. We could then roll the above fixes and
> increased unit tests into ns3.2.1 within say, 2 weeks.
Did you look at the coverage from the regression tests also?
More information about the Ns-developers