I don't get the "don't aim for 100%" point For me the point of that one is that test coverage isn't the goal - good code is. I've seen folk disappearing down

I don't get the "don't aim for 100%" point For me the point of that one is that test coverage isn't the goal - good code is. I've seen folk disappearing down a rabbit hole focusing on getting that last 2% of branch coverage using some baroque mock object monkey patched into the system. Their focus was on test coverage. What people who focus on test coverage get is an evil complex test suite that's very brittle in the face of change. Other, smarter, folk go "damn - I can't test that easily - this code sucks", factor out unrelated functionality into appropriate classes, add some code that makes some duplication between branches obvious, factor out the duplication and end up with something that's better code, with simpler tests - and better test coverage too. Their focus is on the code - not the test coverage. [Edited for... erm... English]