On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 22:07:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 21:48:23 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 21:32:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
This is exactly wrong attitude. Why on earth should we make
life easier for folks who don't bother to get 100% unit test
coverage?
Because that is 99% of D users...
If so, they have no excuse. D has made it ridiculously easy to
unit test your code. And I very much doubt that 99% of D users
don't unit test their code.
There are cases where 100% isn't possible - e.g. because of an
assert(0) or because you're dealing with UI code or the like
where it simply isn't usable without running the program - but
even then, the test coverage should be as close to 100% as can
be achieved, which isn't usually going to be all that far from
100%.
We should be ashamed when our code is not as close to 100% code
coverage as is feasible (which is usually 100%).
- Jonathan M Davis
I ment 99% don't 100% unit tests, but even close to 100% is still
probably not that common, most D users are hobbyists I
think(though I could be wrong), and hobbyists are lazy.
