He had me agreeing at first, but the blog at least kinda devolved into a highly numbered breakdown of the impossibility of total test coverage. As I said in my

He had me agreeing at first, but the blog at least kinda devolved into a highly numbered breakdown of the impossibility of total test coverage. As I said in my post, and the blog seemed to echo, I accept that an integration test is a sign that unit tests are not sufficient, but I didn't see a compelling argument in his blog as to how perfect unit test coverage (sufficient to not integration test the _happy path_, not all things ever) is obtained. I certainly can see the situation he's describing, but it feels like he goes on to expand it into a pathological strawman (ALL the unit tests EVERYWHERE testing EVERYTHING run at EVERY BUILD) more than a situation you manage a little more smartly. (As the oft-hammered quote, these things are all tools, the moment one stops not being useful/stops being worth the cost, we stop using it)