Jeff: code coverage analysis would be great. Istanbul is one JS tool for this. It might not work with our Mocha variant usage, but we can make it happen. Let’s add it.

Benji: +1, but IME 100% test coverage is necessary but not sufficient. Analyzing individual modules with their associated tests gives much better results than analyzing all modules with all tests at once.

Jeff: keeping behavior app extensions or separate objects can keep tests more tightly focused.

Gary: Istanbul is the “best test coverage tool”?
Jeff: It has a lot of momentum and I know how to use it. We might want to investigate other options before committing.

Gary: test coverage can’t decrease? Like undocumented file?
(undocumented file approach has not worked as well as I would like)
(Jeff: we could improve)
(Benji: yes)
(Nicola: plus when undocumented file is regenerated order is different)
(Benji: how easy to fix it so that callbacks are not listed as needing documentation?)
(Benji: not clear)
Maybe we could do something similar to undocumented file to get code coverage increasing in the future. However, hopefully our slack time/maintenace time is going to be decreasing for the next couple of months at least, which will mean that we have minimal time for this.

[ACTION] Gary will make a low priority card for investigating code coverage tools and then incorporating one.