>Most of "we should go for 100% coverage" is simply cargo-culting (pushed by "gurus" like Uncle Bob - the negative aspects of the word guru implied)
I came here just to search for Uncle Bob to see the fun comments talking about him.
No, he does not recommend 100% coverage.
He is against writing tests for "basic" code like getters/setters.
I can understand the irritation with Uncle Bob - especially if you've read his blog. But everyone seems to get his stance on unit tests wrong - including Uncle Bob fans.
His fans say he advocates for 100% code coverage.
His detractors say he advocates for 100% code coverage.
All while Uncle Bob is saying he doesn't cover "trivial" code.
I came here just to search for Uncle Bob to see the fun comments talking about him.
No, he does not recommend 100% coverage.
He is against writing tests for "basic" code like getters/setters.
I can understand the irritation with Uncle Bob - especially if you've read his blog. But everyone seems to get his stance on unit tests wrong - including Uncle Bob fans.
His fans say he advocates for 100% code coverage.
His detractors say he advocates for 100% code coverage.
All while Uncle Bob is saying he doesn't cover "trivial" code.