IMO, it applies to anyone making changes to code paths that are probably working. As we've already seen, there is a cost to making a mistake in what seems like a simple change that totally outweighs the value to the technology. Folks creating new features or fixing major bugs are really "moving the needle" and adding new code paths and I am willing to take risks around test coverage. Until our consumers start making requests for cleaning up technical debt, the minimal functional value gained is currently not worth the risk.
My 2 cents, -Alex On 7/6/17, 5:22 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >Hi, > >> If you make a change to fix technical debt then you should also assure >>that both existing tests pass and if no tests exist then tests are added >>and proper. > >I’m all for more tests. However should this apply to any changes anyone >makes for any reason OR only changes I make? > >I asking because taken literally this could possible end up being a >situation were any changes I make are vetoed due to low test coverage but >other people can make changes and ignore test coverage. > >Thanks, >Justin
