Hey,
My own experience is that "test coverage" is a poor evaluation metric
for anything but "test coverage"; it
doesn't produce better code, and
tends to produce code that is considerably harder to understand
conceptually because it has been over-factorized into simple bits that
hide the actual code and data flow. "Forest for the trees".
Test coverage is a metric to see how much of your code is executed by your
tests. From this alone you cannot say if some code is good or bad. You can
have bad code with 100% coverage, and good code without any coverage. You
are first stating it is a poor metric to measure quality and then proceed
to make the claim that more coverage implies bad code. Aside from
contradicting yourself, this is pure nonsense. Perhaps you just expressed
yourself badly, as test coverage does not "produce" code to begin with.
Cheers
--
Jeroen De Dauw
http://www.bn2vs.com
Don't panic. Don't be evil. ~=[,,_,,]:3
--