I wonder why higher quality in my code is not recognized by my managers. From my first project till my 4th project (mid 2008), i spent 50-100% additional time

 

* adding ground-breaking email alerts
* checking nulls in more places than others
* checking missing data in more places
* adding table constraints
* adding automated tests covering 100% of possible scenarios in some cases
* adding other automated tests usinbg junit, fitness and mocks

 

(If you have time i can bring some code to show you the numerous extra control i added after my code became “good enough” by my colleage's standard.)

 

To my surprise, now i think my managers do not really consider my code quality higher than my colleagues'. They saw my code sent unusual email alerts to report suspicious data (that my colleagues ignore!). They heard i wrote automated tests. They saw the full matrix of scenarios i cover…. Undisputable evidence of higher code quality in my opinion. However, in the end, I was “influcenced” to stop these because i was consistently advised on efficiency and a little “too much” attention to details.

 

In many cases, my email alerts and table constraints uncovered data issues ignored by upstream and downstream. I thought these are proof of my higher code quality but my managers didn't recognize.

 

in early Nov 2009, there was a bug discovered in a project co-developed by me and Colleague A. In Aug, we faced a tricky timing issue between my batch and A's batch. Team lead made a simple design decision that appeared water proof, but now we know he missed a special scenario. People ask why i didn't test that. I didn't know team lead's assumption was only 99% correct. I feel this bug should not affect my reputation, but i think people see it as bug in *my* code, because i'm the main developer and it's my project.