Quality Assurance Driven Development - And The Resulting Damage...

Everything started with measurement of JavaDoc coverage. The equasion was simple - more coverage, better software quality. But the result is actually sad. In case developers are forced to comment every piece of code, they will comment getters / setters as well. It's hardly possible to provide usable comments for straight-forward code. The problem is not the process of writing - if you comment obvious code, someone will have to read your documentation....

Recently QA departments spotted the opportunity for measurement of the unit-test coverage. This gets even worse. Because writing unit tests takes some time, it's often much easier to test obvious code to raise the test coverage. Meanwhile, I gets suspicious in case an average corporate project shines with test-coverage > 80%.  The question is: what are actually the remaining 20%? A more serious problem I encountered in an "agile" project (with huge amount of unit tests :-)), was a considerable coverage of CRUD-cases (like masterdata management) ...but some really hard to test algorithms were just skipped ...and caused trouble in the production.They just didn't contributed enough to the code-coverage results :-).

You could even generate your tests to increase the coverage. Then even System.out.println could be tested - the acronym would be cool as well Code Driven Test Generation (CDTG).

...instead of believing in numbers - sometimes a portion of common sense could really streamline your development. The problem here: then you could get rid off many buzzword, acronyms, processes and tools :-).


Quality Assurance Driven development (where have you found the term? ;-) ) is not guilty.

It only means that Any-Driven-Development will fail if common sense is not used ;-)

BTW it would be funny if your common sense would be the same as reader's common sense. So follow standards and use common sense to follow standards without pain. Least surprise rule, huh?

Posted by abch on June 17, 2008 at 02:03 PM CEST #

As usual, I agree with you. I have seen getters and setters tested just because it up'ed the coverage.

Not only is it a waste of time writing such superfluous tests, but it makes maintaining the code more painful as well as you break tests all over the show for a trivial change.

Posted by Simon on December 07, 2012 at 04:09 PM CET #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: NOT allowed
...the last 150 posts
...the last 10 comments