> Once you've reached even 25% coverage, it's really dubious whether more coverage than that is actually telling you anything. For sure there's diminishing ret

> Once you've reached even 25% coverage, it's really dubious whether more coverage than that is actually telling you anything. For sure there's diminishing returns on test coverage and I share your frustration with the myopic focus on coverage but there's no way it's anywhere close to 25%. Perhaps 25% is sufficient (or way more than enough) for new, small projects using languages with good compilers and type checkers. But it's no where near enough even under those ideal conditions when you have several generations of developers working on big multi-year projects. Tests do reduce bugs. That's why automated testing was invented in the first place. Number of bugs vs company revenue isn't ignored because it'd make people look bad, but because it's an incredibly difficult metric to calculate.