Conversation
|
|
||
| > We incorporate good security practice in all our code | ||
|
|
||
| ### We test our code |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some of these principles read like statements but some read like instructions - I feel we should try to get some consistency (although I don't have a good answer for this case!)
docs/principles/coding_principles.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ### We test our code | ||
|
|
||
| > Tests can act as good documentation as well as avoiding bugs and regression issues. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This bit is generally a more detailed articulation of the principle, something like:
We are always able to prove that our code works and functions correctly by having a set of tests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added. I've changed "set of tests" to "automated test suite".
Though I'm not sure if that's too restrictive. Do we have any cases where automated tests against code isn't possible/practical and manual tests alone are appropriate?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I do wonder if this is perhaps a bit too prescriptive
It's going to be right most of the time, but I don't know if people might get too hung up on the "automated" part?
We mention elsewhere about running unit tests as part of a CI pipeline, so I don't think we need to specify anything about automation here.
As this is a principles document rather than a technical standard, I think having a principle of "testing" is enough - other areas can cover the specifics of how we apply that principle in practice.
docs/principles/coding_principles.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| > Tests can act as good documentation as well as avoiding bugs and regression issues. | ||
|
|
||
| - It is usually self documenting |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This statement could be a bit misleading - should we put in the statement from your description instead?
- Acts as good documentation for the code
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about "supporting documentation" as opposed to "good documentation"? To avoid the subjectivity of "good".
2 participants
No description provided.