Test Coverage Debate
Comments debate the value and limitations of code/test coverage metrics, arguing that 100% coverage does not guarantee correctness, thorough testing, or bug-free code, while highlighting it as a misleading proxy for quality.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Code coverage is not all you should be doing.
What's the value in code coverage from failing tests?
You can have 100% code coverage, and still not be testing anything. Unless you're testing thoroughly the right parts, they're a false sense of security.
test coverage is not necessary for catching bugs in a line of code. There are other methods.
why are you not crazy about good code coverage?
100% code coverage does not mean a full test suite. You can still find huge numbers of bugs in code that has 100% coverage in a test suite. The two are not the same!
Pushback on increasing test coverage?
100% code coverage still doesn't give you correctness.
Be careful that coverage is a proxy metric to good tests. Striving for high coverage can mislead you on the quality of your tests.
They do, if you don’t have 100% code coverage then you get what you get