Hey, My own experience is that "test coverage" is a poor evaluation metric > for anything but "test coverage"; it doesn't produce better code, and > tends to produce code that is considerably harder to understand > conceptually because it has been over-factorized into simple bits that > hide the actual code and data flow. "Forest for the trees". >
Test coverage is a metric to see how much of your code is executed by your tests. From this alone you cannot say if some code is good or bad. You can have bad code with 100% coverage, and good code without any coverage. You are first stating it is a poor metric to measure quality and then proceed to make the claim that more coverage implies bad code. Aside from contradicting yourself, this is pure nonsense. Perhaps you just expressed yourself badly, as test coverage does not "produce" code to begin with. Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw http://www.bn2vs.com Don't panic. Don't be evil. ~=[,,_,,]:3 -- _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
