Trooper wrote:
Of course, we all have a full test suite written in easy to understand code, that gives you all you need to know to understand how the code works and what the intentions are...right?
If you need a test suite (essentially acting as "another form of external documentation" here) to understand a class/method, you're still doing it wrong.
The only purpose for a test suite is to check you've done what you thought the requirements said you should do.
The only comments I insist on are xmldoc on public/protected methods and class headers, and that's company policy, not just mine. If code itself needs commenting it had better be "work around a quirk/bug in an underlying piece of code which you don't have access to or time to do a complete overhaul on" or because what you're doing is just really hard to code in an easily understandable fashion, and justifiable to your reviewer.
Beyond backlog items there's very little other documentation either - "I'm new to this nightmare, how do I get it/build it/run it?" and anything absolutely required by the wider R&d process, which is absurdly heavy.