Why You SHOULD Have 100% Code Test Coverage

home
unit testing
view story

17 Kicks

Kick It

Drop Kick

Kicked

Why You SHOULD Have 100% Code Test Coverage(blog.obishawn.com)

submitted by SuperJason(2740) 3 years, 11 months ago

Shawn talks about why your goal should be 100% unit test coverage, despite what others may say.

1 comment |category: Unit Testing |Views: 415
Tweet

tags: Testing another

Everyones tags:

Your Tags:

Please login or signup.

Add a live kick counter to your blog >> liveImage

You can even customize the image by choosing your own colors, and then clicking the button below to update the preview and the html code:

"Kick It" text
"Kick It" background
kick count text
kick count background
border

Simply copy and paste this HTML into your blog post.

Users who kicked this story:

adron(835) -

agora(5) -

mdopp(856) -

AlexCuse(325)

More who kicked this story...

Comments:

posted by powerrush(3873) 3 years, 11 months ago 0

#1 reason against 100% code coverage - low ROI, as I think it easily outweighs the "pros" mentioned in this article.

Also #3 makes little sense to me as a reason to have 100% code coverage. it works fine as a reason to modularize your code, but it seems the author is thinking that the tail is wagging the dog.

There is one gem in the article -- the tip on using NewtonSoft Utilities.NET, but IMO that kick should go to James Newton-King

Most Active Users

What's this?