> You seem to have assumed that I'm a 100% test coverage no matter the context or costs person, and ran with that. I was talking about using type annotations t

> You seem to have assumed that I'm a 100% test coverage no matter the context or costs person, and ran with that. I was talking about using type annotations to catch "simple typos in code paths that are not exercised in tests." Those are the exact words I used. And you responded, first explaining how to catch those bugs with tests, or how the existence of these bugs is a signal that your tests should be better. Like, I just don't get what you are trying to say. If you accept that your code doesn't have 100% test coverage, then you accept that there will be bugs in untested code paths that are not caught by your tests. But you said that you "take that as evidence that your coverage isn't sufficient." As far as I can tell, that means you're aiming for 100% test coverage or somewhere close.