[melozo]

I’m not sure how controversial this is - but 100% code coverage is almost always a waste of time, paid both immediately and long term, for certain languages. Go, for example, requires explicit error handling, but the way errors are handled are usually plain and homogenous. Adding unit testing everywhere creates a phenomenal amount of test code that can become 3x the size of the source, and certain changes (like interface changes) can require updates to all tests, especially if mocking is used.

Obviously with AI maybe those issues I have go away. But I really don’t like letting the AI modify tests without meticulously manually reviewing those changes, because in my experience the AI cares more about getting the tests passing than it does about ensuring semantic correctness. For as long as tests are manually maintained I will continue keeping them as few as necessary while maintaining what I view as an acceptable amount of coverage.