“What gets measured, gets done”.
We all know this. By the way, did you notice that it says: “done”, not “done well”?
We like metrics, because we base decisions on them. If we didn’t have them, then we would just be guessing.
Yet sometimes, metrics deceive us. Well not exactly, it’s our interpretation of them that deceives us.
I’ve talked about misusing velocity before, so this time I’ll point at something else, more substantial and scientific.
Code coverage, anyone?
Code coverage is very scientific. It counts if the program has visited a line of code or not. So it can’t be wrong, right?
Remember it’s not a wrong metric, it’s what we do with it.
0% code coverage is not good, even I agree.
How about 100%?
Not achievable, you say? Sometimes, but let’s say we can do it. Do we want to be 100% covered? Because that means a lot of effort. Testing, like everything in the universe, goes by the 80-20 rule. That means that most of the effort will be put into the last 20% of the code. It may not be the most important code to test, because not all code is created equal.
Ok, so 100% coverage may be achievable, but costly. How about 80%? How about not letting anyone check-in code if it’s not 80% covered?
Which 80%? Does it include auto-generated code? Does it include the important, risky, bug-ridden, not reviewed code?
What does 80% (or any number) actually mean?
Not a lot by itself. If you take other considerations into it, the number’s meaning gets clearer, and that gives a better basis for decision making. That’s the problem with straight metrics – we focus on them and forget other things that can help us make better decisions.
Always ask “what does this number really mean?” and “do I need to consider something more?”. Then make decisions.