Hi Grant!

Sorry to say, but you missed the point! I never said that (did I?) that code coverage is useless, it is very useful. Like Martin Fowler, I wanted to stress the focus as a management metric.

Just imagine how bad things can go when you put money incentives on code coverage. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

The idea is if the objective of code coverage is just satisfying some arbitrary management metric, it looses all its meaning. Code coverage should be to help developers to do their task, not just to make a check in a delivery.

Here is when I like to quote the Agile Manifesto principle: "Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done." Well, Code Coverage is a great tool for motivated developers, who can discover things -I believe that I already talked about that in the article, right?-.

So, if I am not wrong, we are not so distant. I am not looking to stop doing code coverage, just stop using it as a management metric. Because, if management believes that 80% ensures quality... now we know that tests do not need to be meaningful to achieve that. Aren't they?