91 lines
No EOL
3.8 KiB
JSON
91 lines
No EOL
3.8 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"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\n"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"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": "\n <p>Testing - manual or automated - is about building confidence.<\/p>\n\n<p>If we deploy this change or release this feature, are we confident it will work as expected and not cause regressions elsewhere?<\/p>\n\n<p>What if someone asked you on a scale between one and ten?<\/p>\n\n<p>From an automated perspective, have you written enough tests for the feature to be confident it works?<\/p>\n\n<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>\n\n<p>Do the tests have enough assertions, and have you covered enough use cases and scenarios?<\/p>\n\n<h2 id=\"here%27s-the-thing\">Here's the thing<\/h2>\n\n<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>\n\n<p>For me, it's about the answer to the question:<\/p>\n\n<p>If we deploy this change, how confident are you that it will work as expected?<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <p>Testing - manual or automated - is about building confidence.<\/p>\n\n<p>If we deploy this change or release this feature, are we confident it will work as expected and not cause regressions elsewhere?<\/p>\n\n<p>What if someone asked you on a scale between one and ten?<\/p>\n\n<p>From an automated perspective, have you written enough tests for the feature to be confident it works?<\/p>\n\n<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>\n\n<p>Do the tests have enough assertions, and have you covered enough use cases and scenarios?<\/p>\n\n<h2 id=\"here%27s-the-thing\">Here's the thing<\/h2>\n\n<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>\n\n<p>For me, it's about the answer to the question:<\/p>\n\n<p>If we deploy this change, how confident are you that it will work as expected?<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |