> I'm not a fan of aiming for 100% coverage
"100% coverage" is just a measure of line coverage and is highly useless to reason about.
For testing to become meaningful, you should have test data covering way more than that for the relevant parts.
"100% coverage" is just a measure of line coverage and is highly useless to reason about.
For testing to become meaningful, you should have test data covering way more than that for the relevant parts.
No comments yet.