3 ms·
It's interesting, because this tracks my take on code coverage metrics, speaking from a quality background. There are only two intrinsically meaningful values:
by geoelectric 5y ago
It's interesting, because this tracks my take on code coverage metrics, speaking from a quality background.
There are only two intrinsically meaningful values: None, and less than yesterday. Former indicates no analysis, second indicates new code/branch/paths checked in without tests.
Past that, it's all relative. Major code coverage here and sparse there tells some kind of story, either about lopsided risk, lopsided difficulty, or lopsided process.
- prepend 5y agoIt’s funny because I like knowing it and find it useful but can almost never talk about it because it gets misinterpreted by pointy haired boss-types who want to track it, or practitioners who want to cargo cult it, or cynical people who think it’s worthwhile to game. Office365 introduced some crazy usage metrics like number of minutes and “engagement” and whatnot. It was total garbage and not right (showing my first active as 1030, despite using mobile and sending tons of email and doc edits at 6am). But it had a metric about engagement through using at mentions in my direct report chain. Some manager thought this was good and praised people very engaged and instructed people to be more engaged. A few folks just at mentioned instead of putting names in their email’s To field. They shot to the top of this dipshit’s leaderboard.