New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
100% Test Coverage #3067
Comments
Wouldn't it be good to keep the codecov for future testing? |
We can use c8 and configure it so that it return non 0 return value when running in the CI/CD Pipeline. So if we have a PR without a proper test, we could nag about the missing test. Codecov is only necessary if we have below 100% coverage. |
I got it, thank you very much |
I don't see the benefit in having 100% code coverage. |
I am not saying, that you personally should start implementing tests. E.g. I am still writing tests for cookies and I constantly find bugs. And I can not fix them, because upstreaming in deno is basically impossible, because I see that they cant even invest time to review the PR to fix the maxAge bug. I will open for the cookies problem a separate issue. But yeah, it is annoying. We need to investigate with the tests if the underlying code is actually working or not. So it is not only achieve 100% test coverage but also investigate if the logic is valid or not. |
100% test coverage and validating logic are mutually exclusive issues, the latter one I have no problems with. I see it as not only a false sense of security, but also a waste of time. |
I disagree. Code which is not covered by any test has imho the inherent assumption to be erroneous or being obsolete. |
I consider tests that exist for the sake of code coverage erroneous and obsolete 😉 |
We agree to disagree |
Obligatory issue.
Also: If we have 100% test coverage, we could drop codecov.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: