3 ms·

The problem with the "100%" goal is that it provides a false sense of safety. There can still be plenty of bugs in code that has "100%" test coverage. The 100%

• biztos 9y ago
  I concede that for people who don't understand what unit testing does, 100% might provide a false sense of security. But I don't think that's a problem with the goal... that would be like saying the problem with staying fit is that it provides a false sense of longevity, whereas you could still get brain cancer or be hit by a car. If you know what's going on -- and hopefully you do if you're making decisions like whether to pursue a 100% coverage goal -- then your point is (I hope) self-evident. It's also why code review is necessary and not just the coverage metric. 100% coverage is not "100% of all things that could happen," it's "100% of all code execution paths" and (hopefully) a sample of all known types of valid and invalid inputs. Anyway, so far I've found that most developers respond pretty well to the 100% idea if you explain its utility and what it does and doesn't get you. From a ridiculously small sample, granted. The utopian risk, I think, is much more around the hope that people high up the food chain in your organization actually understand this stuff. Consider how many VPs of Engineering did a year or two of engineering work (before unit testing was in vogue) then got that MBA and have been busy taking meetings ever since.