Why You SHOULD Have 100% Code Test Coverage

Why not join our community?, there are 6 users online

home
unit testing
view story

DotNetKick.com is an open-source project. Please report any bugs and let us know your great suggestions. Currently running svn revision 620 (rss)

Kick Spy!, Kick Zeitgeist and Kick Widgets

17
kicks

kick it

Why You SHOULD Have 100% Code Test Coverage

published 3 months, 26 days ago, submitted by

SuperJason 3 months, 28 days ago

blog.obishawn.com — Shawn talks about why your goal should be 100% unit test coverage, despite what others may say.

1 comment | category:

Unit Testing | Views: 404 | Get KickIt image code

tags: Testing | tag it

Everyones tags:

Your tags:

Please login or signup.

Add a live kick counter to your blog >> liveImage

You can even customize the image by choosing your own colors, and then clicking the button below to update the preview and the html code:

"Kick It" text
"Kick It" background
kick count text
kick count background
border

Simply copy and paste this HTML into your blog post.

Users who kicked this story:

SuperJason -

Obishawn - Lord -

JamesNK -

jonas - melzie215 -

JudahGabriel -

adminjew - nsoonhui - joe.feser - Tr3v - mattman206 -

AlexCuse - jims -

mdopp - adron - agora

Comments:

#1 reason against 100% code coverage - low ROI, as I think it easily outweighs the "pros" mentioned in this article.

Also #3 makes little sense to me as a reason to have 100% code coverage. it works fine as a reason to modularize your code, but it seems the author is thinking that the tail is wagging the dog.

There is one gem in the article -- the tip on using NewtonSoft Utilities.NET, but IMO that kick should go to James Newton-King

posted by

powerrush 3 months, 28 days ago