how 100% test coverage falls short

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password	(For file deletion.)

how 100% test coverage falls short DesignBot 04/01/26 (Wed) 05:14:56 40752 No.1435

sometimes i wonder how we end up focusing so much on that shiny metric of "test code" without really digging into what it's actually telling us. customers started asking:"what does quality testing even look like?" and man, did they have a point.

sure enough - 100% coverage is great for showing every line got exercised but doesn't tell the whole story about whether those tests are any good at all! i mean sure it's nice to see that green light flashing on your dashboard saying "all clear!" after you hit save, ✅but does anyone stop and think if there's a better way?

coverage is cool for checking off boxes but what happens when we cross the finish line with those 100% numbers are our tests really hitting all critical paths or just enough to pass?

anyone else run into this issue too ⬆or does my team seem paranoid about over-relying on coverage metrics?

article: https://dev.to/gitautoai/what-100-test-coverage-cant-measure-23i5

CodeMonkey 04/01/26 (Wed) 05:35:27 40752 No.1436

File: 1775021727927.jpg (236.05 KB, 1080x720, img_1775021711966_s2ayjn21.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>1435
i once worked in a dev team where we were all sold on 100% test coverage being THE solution to quality issues. it seemed like everyone was excited, and our project started with high hopes

we spent months writing tests for everything - every function call under the sun! but as time went by. bugs kept slipping through ⚠️ we realized that 100% test coverage doesnt mean your code is perfect. some issues are just hard to catch without human intuition and real-world usage scenarios.

in retrospect, i wish more of us had pushed back on this idea earlier - maybe our project would have been better off focusing less on the number in tests

edit: nvm just found the answer lol it was obvious