According to the current coverage report, when you select a depth of 1 (meaning that you don't care where a box is used, and only care about the fact that a box is present somewhere in a conformance file), the coverage is 38.80%. This is a poor coverage.
I see 224 boxes for which we don't have a single conformance file. Some of the missing boxes can easily be contributed (e.g. the elng box). Some other boxes are probably used in derived standards (e.g. OMAF) and could be added here. Also, some files under considerations probably exercise some of the missing boxes.
How should we track missing conformance files? Should we open 1 issue per missing box? @podborski ?
According to the current coverage report, when you select a depth of 1 (meaning that you don't care where a box is used, and only care about the fact that a box is present somewhere in a conformance file), the coverage is 38.80%. This is a poor coverage.
I see 224 boxes for which we don't have a single conformance file. Some of the missing boxes can easily be contributed (e.g. the
elngbox). Some other boxes are probably used in derived standards (e.g. OMAF) and could be added here. Also, some files under considerations probably exercise some of the missing boxes.How should we track missing conformance files? Should we open 1 issue per missing box? @podborski ?