3 ms·

I recently tried TDD. It was fun for a while, but it took too much time writing tests for mundane things. I am not convinced about 100% coverage etc. For me th

I recently tried TDD. It was fun for a while, but it took too much time writing tests for mundane things. I am not convinced about 100% coverage etc. For me the biggest takeaway was the way I was organizing my code. I work on a 15 year old web application with lots of legacy stuff, so it isn't easy to make changes fast. New code that I write depends on old code, so I am constrained a bit. Even still, I found marked improvement in my code structure after trying TDD. I do not know whether I'll stick with TDD, but I definitely will remember the code organizing lessons it taught me

StevePerkins 6y ago
It's usually counterproductive to strive for 100% test coverage. You wind up with nonsense tests for default getters/setters, and occasionally you face things that simply CAN'T be 100% tested due to how a 3rd-party library works. The most aggressive shop I've ever seen set their bar at 95% coverage.
circlefavshape 6y ago
In my last job we had 100% coverage, but if something was trivial we'd annotate so the code coverage tool would ignore it. It meant every decision not to cover something was documented, and visible to the code reviewer