My boss is planning to use the metrics from our continuous build (builds and runs tests on every commit) as part of our performance reviews (in our 'quality' metric). This seems like a REALLY bad idea to me, but I'd like to know if anyone has studied this or seen this tried before.
My thought is that it's going to have our developers not put in as many tests as they otherwise would, for fear that the tests are going to fail. I feel that he's turning a valuable developer tool into a stick to beat the developers with.
The obvious counter argument is that it will promote people being more careful before they commit, and therefore leading to higher quality.
Am I off base here? Please leave aside the question of whether we should be doing performance reviews at all or not - that's been answered elsewhere.