On Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 08:36:28 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
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...
I can count with one hand the companies I have witness doing it.
--
Paulo
