I've always viewed the code coverage metric as "what percentage of things that are supposed to be tested are actually tested?" From this perspective, anything l

I've always viewed the code coverage metric as "what percentage of things that are supposed to be tested are actually tested?" From this perspective, anything less than 100% is a serious failing--it means that you've forgotten to test something you think is supposed to be tested. Now, the correct response may well be to decide that that particular bit of code shouldn't be tested after all. Sometimes this means adding a /coverage skip if: an outgrabed momerath is hard to reproduce on demand/ for a particularly tricky corner case, but more often it means that you haven't correctly separated your concerns and that particular piece of code actually belongs in a file that's not touched by the test suite.