Move all files to tome/

tome/content/node.59cd5b64-d1c8-4249-ab41-2106e25df543.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+uuid:
+  - value: 59cd5b64-d1c8-4249-ab41-2106e25df543
+langcode:
+  - value: en
+type:
+  - target_id: daily_email
+    target_type: node_type
+    target_uuid: 8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7
+revision_timestamp:
+  - value: '2025-05-11T09:00:28+00:00'
+revision_uid:
+  - target_type: user
+    target_uuid: b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849
+revision_log: {  }
+status:
+  - value: true
+uid:
+  - target_type: user
+    target_uuid: b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849
+title:
+  - value: |
+      Is code coverage an objective or guideline?
+created:
+  - value: '2023-11-02T00:00:00+00:00'
+changed:
+  - value: '2025-05-11T09:00:28+00:00'
+promote:
+  - value: false
+sticky:
+  - value: false
+default_langcode:
+  - value: true
+revision_translation_affected:
+  - value: true
+path:
+  - alias: /daily/2023/11/02/is-code-coverage-an-objective-or-guideline
+    langcode: en
+body:
+  - value: |
+      <p>Many development teams and projects use code coverage - e.g. how many lines of code are covered by automated tests - as an objective, and saying it must be 100% or another percentage.</p>
+
+      <p>But is this an effective metric?</p>
+
+      <p>In the same way as deleting failing tests to fix a pipeline, a code coverage amount can be faked.</p>
+
+      <p>With this in mind, what if, instead of setting an objective such as 100% code coverage, you used it as a guideline?</p>
+
+      <p>If you're working on a legacy project, what if you set a minimum code coverage amount as a guideline to ensure any new code has tests by not dropping under that level?</p>
+
+      <p>Would that be better than saying every line of code needs to be covered?</p>
+
+      <p>Code coverage is something I'm thinking of using more, so I want to know what you think.</p>
+
+              
+    format: full_html
+    processed: |
+      <p>Many development teams and projects use code coverage - e.g. how many lines of code are covered by automated tests - as an objective, and saying it must be 100% or another percentage.</p>
+
+      <p>But is this an effective metric?</p>
+
+      <p>In the same way as deleting failing tests to fix a pipeline, a code coverage amount can be faked.</p>
+
+      <p>With this in mind, what if, instead of setting an objective such as 100% code coverage, you used it as a guideline?</p>
+
+      <p>If you're working on a legacy project, what if you set a minimum code coverage amount as a guideline to ensure any new code has tests by not dropping under that level?</p>
+
+      <p>Would that be better than saying every line of code needs to be covered?</p>
+
+      <p>Code coverage is something I'm thinking of using more, so I want to know what you think.</p>
+
+              
+    summary: null
+field_daily_email_cta: {  }