The best metric that I have ever used is the C.R.A.P. score.
Basically it's an algorithm that compares weighted cyclomatic complexity with automated test coverage. The algorithm looks like this: CRAP(m) = comp(m)^2 * (1 – cov(m)/100)^3 + comp(m)
where comp(m) is the cyclomatic complexity of method m, and cov(m) is the test code coverage provided by automated tests.
The authors of the afore mentioned article (please, go read it...it's well worth your time) suggest a max C.R.A.P. score of 30 which breaks down in the following way:
Method’s Cyclomatic Complexity % of coverage required to be
below CRAPpy threshold
------------------------------ --------------------------------
0 – 5 0%
10 42%
15 57%
20 71%
25 80%
30 100%
31+ No amount of testing will keep methods
this complex out of CRAP territory.
As you quickly see, the metric rewards writing code that is not complex coupled with good test coverage (if you are writing unit tests, and you should be, and are not measuring coverage...well, you probably would enjoy spitting into the wind as well). ;-)
For most of my development teams I tried really hard to get the C.R.A.P. score below 8, but if they had valid reasons to justify the added complexity that was acceptable as long as they covered the complexity with sufficient tests. (Writing complex code is always very difficult to test...kind of a hidden benefit to this metric).
Most people found it hard initially to write code that would pass the C.R.A.P. score. But over time they wrote better code, code that had fewer problems, and code that was a lot easier to debug. Out of any metric, this is the one that has the fewest concerns and the greatest benefit.
