> it's impossible to write adequate test coverage up front I'm not sure what you mean by this. Why are the tests you're writing not "adequate" for the code you

> it's impossible to write adequate test coverage up front I'm not sure what you mean by this. Why are the tests you're writing not "adequate" for the code you're testing? If I read into this that you're using code coverage as a metric -- and perhaps even striving for as close to 100% as possible -- I'd argue that's not useful. Code coverage, as a goal, is perhaps even harmful. You can have 100% code coverage and still miss important scenarios -- this means the software can still be wrong, despite the huge effort put into getting 100% coverage and having all tests both correct and passing.