> Selling the idea that the higher the test code coverage is the better and safer your code is. I don't think someone that believes this has a good understandi

> Selling the idea that the higher the test code coverage is the better and safer your code is. I don't think someone that believes this has a good understanding of unit testing. You can easily get 100% coverage without testing anything at all! Coverage is a great metric if it's predicated on high quality tests. Even then 100% coverage doesn't equal "safe". It means that a lot of effort has been put into understanding and testing internal behavior. You still need higher order tests, arguably even more.