with code in good shape, i think i prefer having unnamed tests and instead you read the test to see that its an important function.

however, ive also done code archaeology, and same thing, old inaccurate comments were one of the few remaining things with any idea what the code was supposed to do and got me enough pointers to company external docs to figure out the right stuff.

wiki links, issue links, etc all had been deleted. same with the commit history, and the tests hadnt worked in >5 years and had also been deleted

the best comments on that code were about describing Todos and bugs that existed rather than what the code did do. stream of consciousness comments and jokes

what Ive left for future archaeologists of my code is detailed error messages about what went wrong and what somebody needs to do to fix that error