5 ms·

But it's not immediately obvious if someone changes something that isn't covered by a unit test. Or forgets to create a unit test. Does that mean we should just

But it's not immediately obvious if someone changes something that isn't covered by a unit test. Or forgets to create a unit test. Does that mean we should just abandon writing unit tests altogether? You could always use a tool like Danger (http://danger.systems/ http://danger.systems/) to inspect your code and warn you when code has been updated, but comments nearby have not been.

MaulingMonkey 10y ago
> But it's not immediately obvious if someone changes something that isn't covered by a unit test. Or forgets to create a unit test. This is what code coverage analysis/metrics try to address. > You could always use a tool like Danger (http://danger.systems/ http://danger.systems/) to inspect your code and warn you when code has been updated, but comments nearby have not been. I'd worry about tuning out said warnings after too many false positives. Comments regular enough to not generate too many false positives can generally be turned into real syntax of some description.