Sounds good to me. Can we have a meaningful goal for increasing coverage on existing classes too? Not sure what that would mean exactly, open to suggestions.
Ceej On May 20, 2016 6:50 PM, "abdullah alamoudi" <bamou...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks to Mike Blow, we now have reports of our test coverage for the code > base. > Testing is essential in controlling code quality and our current coverage > could use serious improvement. > > Now that we have the tools to get coverage information, I suggest we > establish a minimum required test coverage for all changes. We can start by > enforcing this on new classes while not reducing the coverage for existing > classes. > > I suggest we set the minimum coverage to 80%. What is nice about this is > that this is an objective measure and no one can claim he's being treated > unfairly. > > Code that is not tested is a broken code. Thoughts? >
