On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:54:32 +0000 Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 01:31:59 UTC, deadalnix wrote: > > On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:43:03 UTC, paulo pinto wrote: > >> On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:25:49 UTC, Walter Bright > >> wrote: > >>> On 12/5/2014 1:27 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: > >>>> Just because code has tests, doesn't mean the tests are > >>>> testing what they > >>>> should. But if they reach the magical percentage number then > >>>> everyone is happy. > >>> > >>> I write unit tests with the goal of exercising every line of > >>> code. While one can argue that that doesn't really test what > >>> the code is supposed to be doing, my experience is that high > >>> coverage percentages strongly correlate with few problems > >>> down the road. > >> > >> I imagine you haven't seen unit tests written by off-shore > >> contractors.... > >> > >> For example, you can have coverage without asserts. > > > > Code review my friend. Nothing gets in without review, and as > > won't usually don't enjoy the prospect of having to fix the shit > > of a coworker, one ensure that coworker wrote proper tests. > > Good luck making that work in companies. > > Code review is something for open source projects and agile > conferences. hm. i should tell my mates that our company with 100+ employers from several countries is doing something wrong, as no code can be commited here without review...
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
