Max Guernsey

My feedback

  1. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Max Guernsey shared this idea  · 
  2. 101 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Max Guernsey supported this idea  · 
  3. 11 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    5 comments  ·  Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Max Guernsey commented  · 

    This could position you as chip leader in the .NET TDD space. If you make a mutation testing tool, and you make it live like your coverage currently is, you could be providing something that I think currently does not exist. Here's the funny part: You are already doing almost all the hard parts about mutation testing (coverage, deciding which tests to run, and running them). You just need to add the mutation part. If it runs in a low priority queue and is easily canceled, that won't bother me and I'm guessing it won't bother anyone else. Getting true, valuable, accurate mutation testing in two or even five minutes is a lot faster than a Java developer can reasonably expect and INFINITELY faster than a .NET developer can (presently expect).

    Max Guernsey supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base