Hacker News Reader

Of course code coverage should not be seen as the only way to measure testing. But should it be systematically disregarded ? I rather see it as one of the tool for QAs to know where they stand at : 5% code coverage vs 85% is still an interesting information to have.

View on HN

100% coverage just gives you a false sense of security. I'd rather just avoid the metric completely

Why does it give a false sense of security? It is not like >99% coverage is the finish line; it is the starting line, the bare minimum. That is like saying you get a false sense of security when a handgun does not pierce your newly developed tank armor.

Because being green on the QA dashboard doesn't mean the unit test makes any sense.

I aim for 100% not for the security but to know my code can be played with and poked at any level.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com