> There was a bunch of dead code buried that was only executed
> by the tests, apparently to bump up their unit test coverage.
I've seen this trick used before; puff up the code base with just-gotta-work type filler (e.g., adding layers of abstraction and tons of parameter checking and re-checking) in order to hit some code-coverage metric. I mean, who's going to argue about a layer of abstraction, it's an automatic good thing, right? And parameter checking is what separates us from the animals!
Encountering code like this is usually a Bad Sign.
I've seen this trick used before; puff up the code base with just-gotta-work type filler (e.g., adding layers of abstraction and tons of parameter checking and re-checking) in order to hit some code-coverage metric. I mean, who's going to argue about a layer of abstraction, it's an automatic good thing, right? And parameter checking is what separates us from the animals!
Encountering code like this is usually a Bad Sign.