News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:99% code coverage (2017) by SkyPuncher on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @11:30AM (#18922219)
I agree. The project I'm working on hovers around 70% coverage. As far as I can tell, we'd likely loose productivity pushing for any better coverage.

We get some bugs/issues that could be identified by better coverage, but most of our "bugs" stem from real world issues or differing views on functionality. Getting that right takes a ton of effort that simply isn't worth it right now.

Re:99% code coverage (2017) by dtech on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @02:26PM (#18924104)
Yep, testing definitely has a hugely decreasing marginal value.

I personally like the approach of writing a small amount of "obvious" tests to detect large functional breakage, and add a test for a bug once it's been identified aka a regression test.

Imo it's maximum test value per effort. Of course it depends on how impactful a bug could be.