Taking conventions to their obvious conclusion: The mandatory test language
I am considering having a language that mandates tests. If you don't have a matching test for the code in question, it will refuse to run. If the tests fail, it will refuse to run. If the tests takes too long, they are considered failed and the code will refuse to run.
This certainly ensure that there would be test. It wouldn't ensure that they would be meaningful, however. That is fine by me. I am not interested in policy through enforcement, just gentle encouragement in the right direction.
The technical challenges of implementing such a system are nil. The implications on the workflow and ease of use for such a system are unknown. On the surface, checked exceptions are great. In practice, they are very cumbersome. This is why I am warning that I have only toyed with the idea, not implemented it.