|
|
|
|
|
|
by hjnilsson
4467 days ago
|
|
|
Working as a contractor, there are often deals that mandate "100% of functions documented" or other silly stuff (I would never strike such a deal, but have inherited projects with this). Since the client actually never checks the code (only metrics) and will never pay what it would cost to create amazing documentation (which only makes sense for public APIs) we just end up with tools that automatically adds comments to functions, which means the codebase ends up with useless javadoc-like clutter. It's the same with "100% test coverage", which is similarly abused, programmer's are a lazy bunch, and smarter than any tool that measures the quality of what they do. So forcing them doesn't work out great. |
|
|
I'm not so sure that's silly. It's absolutely overkill, but in a contractor/client relationship it makes sense that the client will want to make sure they have all the coverage they can get. And as a contractor you can bill for it.