Stated as a project norm: if a piece is unit testable it gets unit tests, and
if it is e2e testable it gets e2e tests, before it counts as done. Both clauses,
not either/or.
Recorded here rather than left as a habit because the recent review measured
what happens without it. Forty-six mutations were run against a 257-test suite;
thirty-six bit and NINE were vacuous, five of those passing the entire suite
while a reattachment code path sat completely unguarded. That code had shipped,
been reviewed, and looked tested. "The suite is green" was true and meant
nothing.
The convention also names the two things that make it enforceable rather than
aspirational. Unit-testable is broader than it looks, because the pure-seam
pattern converts device-bound logic into a testable function plus a thin edge,
and Robolectric now covers the rest including Compose. And e2e is genuinely
runnable locally since the emulator renderer cause was found -- until last
night, "run the instrumented suite" was not a request anyone could act on.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
JMR-devandClaude Opus 5