4 ms·
The title is disingenuous. A better title would be "100% test coverage should be the goal". Though that is laughably obvious and would generate no clicks, so I
by amflare 7y ago
The title is disingenuous. A better title would be "100% test coverage should be the goal". Though that is laughably obvious and would generate no clicks, so I can see why the author made the choice they did.
That said, if you have a single test, that better than no tests. And 90% is better than 80%. Yes, 100% is ideal, but if you let perfect be the enemy of good, than you waste time when low hanging fruit breaks.
- turk73 7y agoThese days I just walk away from places with these idiotic ideas. Test the things that are high risk, that you are personally worried about, that have caused defects in the past. Testing whether the language's getters and setters work is a total fucking waste of time and money. For a long time, until my current project got off the ground and got stable funding, our entire test suite consisted of one integration test that made sure Spring Boot started up. As time allowed we back filled other tests. But when your ass is on the line you don't waste time.