100 lines
No EOL
3.7 KiB
JSON
100 lines
No EOL
3.7 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"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?\n"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"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": "\n <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>\n\n<p>But is this an effective metric?<\/p>\n\n<p>In the same way as deleting failing tests to fix a pipeline, a code coverage amount can be faked.<\/p>\n\n<p>With this in mind, what if, instead of setting an objective such as 100% code coverage, you used it as a guideline?<\/p>\n\n<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>\n\n<p>Would that be better than saying every line of code needs to be covered?<\/p>\n\n<p>Code coverage is something I'm thinking of using more, so I want to know what you think.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <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>\n\n<p>But is this an effective metric?<\/p>\n\n<p>In the same way as deleting failing tests to fix a pipeline, a code coverage amount can be faked.<\/p>\n\n<p>With this in mind, what if, instead of setting an objective such as 100% code coverage, you used it as a guideline?<\/p>\n\n<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>\n\n<p>Would that be better than saying every line of code needs to be covered?<\/p>\n\n<p>Code coverage is something I'm thinking of using more, so I want to know what you think.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"feeds_item": [
|
|
{
|
|
"imported": "1970-01-01T00:33:45+00:00",
|
|
"guid": null,
|
|
"hash": "37779b8be562eca580a1d3eb2ead9f83",
|
|
"target_type": "feeds_feed",
|
|
"target_uuid": "90c85284-7ca8-4074-9178-97ff8384fe76"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |