Post #2675565
2026-04-22 14:31 UTC
@raiderrobert@mastodon.social i see tests and their coverage more of a way to check for soundness and completeness, and not so much as a measure of quality itself. There's also efficiency and subsidiarity (if that's the term; does it not do things outside its stated goals) to consider, i reckon
Replies (1)
-
@david42@mastodon.online 2026-04-22 14:47
@jelte@mastodon.nl @raiderrobert@mastodon.social Higher code/branch/path/etc coverage suggests not just better tests but also better testability of the code under test. Testability is relative to specific testing infrastructure, rather than being something solely inherent to the code under test. Eg, you're not going to get good coverage of error handling without a way to inject errors, and you're not going to get good test coverage of side effects like monitoring signals or logging without a way to capture and test those.