>I still think my testing procedures were better than nothing. I am sure they were, but you also said: >take the time to understand why they want 100% coverag

>I still think my testing procedures were better than nothing. I am sure they were, but you also said: >take the time to understand why they want 100% coverage which to me indicates that they are under the false impression that this gives some sort of completeness, i.e. "make sure this plastic fence covers the entire stretch of mountain road". We have a coverage threshold of 90% and it is helpful because it works as a reminder if you try to check in code that isn't covered by tests. I think that pushing that to 100% would add little value but a lot of overhead. Never tried it though so I fully admit that it's just my hunch.