4 ms·
No, my requirement was actually 100%. I have no reason to lie about this. It’s set at a package level.
by dimmke 4y ago
No, my requirement was actually 100%. I have no reason to lie about this. It’s set at a package level.
- latchkey 4y agoWas this just you or everyone on your team?
- dimmke 4y agoeverybody on my team. Are you seriously implying I was put on some kind of special "extra testing required" probation system where the unit test coverage requirement was upped from 95% to 100%? Are you trolling?
- latchkey 4y agoIt sounds kind of absurd really. I've never once been asked to sign a contract that required me to do 100% code coverage. As others have noted in the thread, it is like some mythical number any way. It sounds to me like this wasn't going to end well since the expectations were wonky from the start.
- dimmke 4y agohttps://jestjs.io/docs/configuration#coveragethreshold-object https://jestjs.io/docs/configuration#coveragethreshold-objec... It is absolutely possible to set the coverage threshold in Jest to 100% for all categories and they are set to that in the codebase I worked on. I would spend hours trying to that last 0.02% covered sometimes.
- latchkey 4y agoThe mythical portion of the number is that last 0.02%... the stuff that is just extra work for no logical benefit. It does make me wonder why it would take you hours to do that though... was the code that complicated to test for some reason?
- dimmke 4y agoYes, it was. It used a very obscure language feature of JavaScript. I won't get more detailed than that.
- latchkey 4y agoI still don't understand why that would cause testing to be hard, but since you won't explain it... I guess it leaves me thinking the problem might not be entirely them.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]