I like this idea. Aiming for a high coverage is good, but it's equally if not more important that your tests are flexible and assert the right conditions. Simply because your test has hit a line of code doesn't imply that it has meaningfully tested that line of code. That being said, there is no chance that a line of code is tested if it isn't covered, so any changes to it could result in defects or issues refactoring.
I like this idea. Many people get caught up in numbers game and may even loose sight of testing the correct thing. Measuring the end game is what's important.
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.
I would look at it at a different angle
Are you getting lots of defects?
Then your testing strategy probably isn't good enough.
Do you feel confident to refactor and change your system
Then your testing strategy probably isn't good enough.
Trying to aim for a number is not going to help you. Tests are a means to an end, measure those ends instead.
I like this idea. Aiming for a high coverage is good, but it's equally if not more important that your tests are flexible and assert the right conditions. Simply because your test has hit a line of code doesn't imply that it has meaningfully tested that line of code. That being said, there is no chance that a line of code is tested if it isn't covered, so any changes to it could result in defects or issues refactoring.
I like this idea. Many people get caught up in numbers game and may even loose sight of testing the correct thing. Measuring the end game is what's important.