Migrate content to YAML

content/node.01f3b831-e981-471f-aef9-076b054e3495.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+uuid:
+  - value: 01f3b831-e981-471f-aef9-076b054e3495
+langcode:
+  - value: en
+type:
+  - target_id: daily_email
+    target_type: node_type
+    target_uuid: 8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7
+revision_timestamp:
+  - value: '2025-05-11T09:00:36+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: |
+      Testing is all about confidence
+created:
+  - value: '2023-07-24T00:00:00+00:00'
+changed:
+  - value: '2025-05-11T09:00:36+00:00'
+promote:
+  - value: false
+sticky:
+  - value: false
+default_langcode:
+  - value: true
+revision_translation_affected:
+  - value: true
+path:
+  - alias: /daily/2023/07/24/testing-is-all-about-confidence
+    langcode: en
+body:
+  - value: |
+      <p>Testing - manual or automated - is about building confidence.</p>
+
+      <p>If we deploy this change or release this feature, are we confident it will work as expected and not cause regressions elsewhere?</p>
+
+      <p>What if someone asked you on a scale between one and ten?</p>
+
+      <p>From an automated perspective, have you written enough tests for the feature to be confident it works?</p>
+
+      <p>If you're fixing a bug, do you have a test that reproduces the bug that was originally failing but now passing since you've added the fix?</p>
+
+      <p>Do the tests have enough assertions, and have you covered enough use cases and scenarios?</p>
+
+      <h2 id="here%27s-the-thing">Here's the thing</h2>
+
+      <p>You can utilise code coverage metrics, but no hard rule says that the feature will work once x percentage is covered. Something with 100% coverage can still contain bugs.</p>
+
+      <p>For me, it's about the answer to the question:</p>
+
+      <p>If we deploy this change, how confident are you that it will work as expected?</p>
+
+              
+    format: full_html
+    processed: |
+      <p>Testing - manual or automated - is about building confidence.</p>
+
+      <p>If we deploy this change or release this feature, are we confident it will work as expected and not cause regressions elsewhere?</p>
+
+      <p>What if someone asked you on a scale between one and ten?</p>
+
+      <p>From an automated perspective, have you written enough tests for the feature to be confident it works?</p>
+
+      <p>If you're fixing a bug, do you have a test that reproduces the bug that was originally failing but now passing since you've added the fix?</p>
+
+      <p>Do the tests have enough assertions, and have you covered enough use cases and scenarios?</p>
+
+      <h2 id="here%27s-the-thing">Here's the thing</h2>
+
+      <p>You can utilise code coverage metrics, but no hard rule says that the feature will work once x percentage is covered. Something with 100% coverage can still contain bugs.</p>
+
+      <p>For me, it's about the answer to the question:</p>
+
+      <p>If we deploy this change, how confident are you that it will work as expected?</p>
+
+              
+    summary: null
+field_daily_email_cta: {  }