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: {  }