sophielane
2 posts
Nov 23, 2025
9:47 AM
|
It’s easy to treat code coverage as a score to maximize — 70%, 80%, 90%, or even 100%. But coverage was never designed to measure how good your tests are. Instead, its real value lies in helping teams decide where to focus next.
Coverage reports reveal which parts of the codebase receive the most testing attention and which areas barely get touched. On legacy modules with high risk and complex logic, even a small increase in coverage may be more impactful than boosting a well-tested module by another 2%. In fast-moving teams, coverage trends also act as a safety net — if coverage dips after major refactoring, it’s a useful signal to validate new logic and ensure older flows weren't accidentally broken.
The right way to use code coverage isn’t to chase a perfect score but to analyze patterns: Which critical paths are under-tested? Which branches are never executed? Which newly added features lack tests due to time pressure? When used this way, coverage becomes a strategic planning tool that supports better test allocation, minimizes blind spots, and makes automation efforts more meaningful instead of purely numerical.
Last Edited by sophielane on Nov 23, 2025 9:48 AM
|
