In previous lives, I've seen code-coverage metrics generated on, say, a
monthly basis and used as a release barrier. I do not think they are
appropriate as a barrier to checkin.
Regards,
-Rick
Kathey Marsden wrote:
David W. Van Couvering wrote:
Did I ask this before? Do we want to agree upon a "low water mark"
for code coverage and send out a "Quality Regression" email if our
testing coverage falls below that mark? I think this would have a lot
of value.
This sounds like an interesting idea. Code coverage is an important
quality data point. What kind of granularity would it have? Would it
be just the overall number or would individual packages or files be
flagged? Also for areas that have poor coverage, how could we
encourage numbers to be brought up before or during enhancements?
Kathey
