[chachacharge]

Code coverage should be easy. if it's costing time, you're doing it wrong. if you're trying to apply it to an old project that did not use code coverage from the start: This is one way to do it wrong. you couldn't hold a gun to my head and make me do that. you can have a little bit of code coverage in this case, but not 85% - no. The moment it proves that it will be costing more time than it saves is the moment you can count me out.

[bloomingkales]

No no, let me be clear. It’s a business, my natural instincts were “this is a waste of money even if it doesn’t take much work”. It’s a business! It’s valid feedback. This is not true for all businesses, but for our business it was true.

How do you tell many many many developers that the reason they shouldn’t focus on certain things is because it’s a waste of money?

This not a topic that comes up a lot because most developers are divorced from the bottom line.

Anyway, this topic can head off in all kinds of directions.

[chachacharge]

well you said it was "insane busy work" and I do not see how that is possible unless applied incorrectly. 90% plus coverage is some smoke ,for example. I don't use code coverage on most of my projects though because the teams are just one or two people, and the projects only live a few years without ever being updated. The teams would have to be bigger the updates more frequent, and the project life span longer.