Closed Robin5605 closed 7 months ago
I'm not really feeling as if this is efficient. While it's important to have tests, trying to test every little thing to get 100% hinders the developer workflow. Setting this to, say, 85% or 90% would still allow for testing important pieces of code while also allowing for rapid iteration.
Which is fine in theory, I'm against creating arbitrary coverage requirements. But raising this while you're introducing a new feature where you're being nagged to actually test it comprehensively seems to be the intended effect.
We have no dev/staging branches or infrastructure; I'd probably blame that as the primary motivation for the high test coverage requirement and tedium regarding rapid development over the high test coverage itself.
Fair assessment. We also don't have a staging or development environment to deploy PRs in to test them that way, so for now we'll keep the coverage requirement at 100%.
I'm not really feeling as if this is efficient. While it's important to have tests, trying to test every little thing to get 100% hinders the developer workflow. Setting this to, say, 85% or 90% would still allow for testing important pieces of code while also allowing for rapid iteration.