Risk-based testing is essentially the same idea. Consider where a bug would hit you most often or where it would deal most damage, that's where you have to test. Testing is always punctual, it's never a full proof. A good test suite will, in the best case, detect the presence of a bug. But it will never be able to show the absence of any bug. Code coverage is nice (and comparably easy to measure), but should not the primary metric to strive for. In my experience, getting code coverage higher than 70% (provided that the existing test cases really are meaningful) is hardly ever worth it. Better spend your time on documentation.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Risk-based testing is essentially the same idea. Consider where a bug would hit you most often or where it would deal most damage, that's where you have to test. Testing is always punctual, it's never a full proof. A good test suite will, in the best case, detect the presence of a bug. But it will never be able to show the absence of any bug. Code coverage is nice (and comparably easy to measure), but should not the primary metric to strive for. In my experience, getting code coverage higher than 70% (provided that the existing test cases really are meaningful) is hardly ever worth it. Better spend your time on documentation.