|
|
|
|
|
by 8organicbits
1163 days ago
|
|
I'm always suspicious of tests when test coverage is the main metric. I've seen developers write tests that don't really check anything but run all the code paths. I've also seen tests that check every bit of output, which end up being brittle. How well do the tests hold up over time, and how well are the tests validating the contract of the code instead of just historical behavior and quirks? |
|
We actually use real user sessions to train our model, so when I use the term coverage our main metric is covering as many user behaviors as possible.
We collect data in a privacy-focused way essentially anonymizing all sensitive information, as we don't need to know the user specific context. Only the main flow.