3 ms·
I can assure you that it is possible and meaningful to have full code coverage in certain contexts (for instance for important projects that get only rarely tou
by hynek 4y ago
I can assure you that it is possible and meaningful to have full code coverage in certain contexts (for instance for important projects that get only rarely touched) and doesn’t inevitably lead to bad test suites.
Railing against code coverage is at this point just as dogma as insisting on it.
- BlargMcLarg 4y agoNot sure why you're highlighting this in a sub-thread regarding the importance of context. Surely this was already implied? What I'm railing against is the idea that seniority is a prime indicator to the effective strategy parent comment insists on, which simply doesn't mirror my experiences. What I see is juniors picking up the habits of their superiors. They're learning this dogmatism from somewhere.
- hynek 4y agoI’m sorry I’ve apparently misunderstood your point. I guess I’ve never seen too brass imparting more than a big picture “we’re writing tests now”.
- iratewizard 4y agoDepends on the industry and client. Some industries have a lot of consultants that don't write code but will tell you 80% is the minimum. Some contracts stipulate code coverage deliverables. Some platforms like Salesforce count lines of code covered and prevent deployments unless 75% and passing.