I’ve heard managers and teams mandating 100% code coverage for applications. That’s a really bad idea. The problem is that you get diminishing returns on our tests as the coverage increases much beyond 70% (I made that number up… no science there). Why is that? Well, when you strive for 100% all the time, you find yourself spending time testing things that really don’t need to be tested. Things that really have no logic in them at all (so any bugs could be caught by ESLint and Flow). Maintaining tests like this actually really slow you and your team down.
Recent articles
- Slop is the new name for unwanted AI-generated content - 8th May 2024
- Weeknotes: more datasette-secrets, plus a mystery video project - 7th May 2024
- Weeknotes: Llama 3, AI for Data Journalism, llm-evals and datasette-secrets - 23rd April 2024
- Options for accessing Llama 3 from the terminal using LLM - 22nd April 2024
- AI for Data Journalism: demonstrating what we can do with this stuff right now - 17th April 2024
- Three major LLM releases in 24 hours (plus weeknotes) - 10th April 2024