Discussions

Code coverage is one of the most discussed metrics in software testing, but its value is often misunderstood. On the surface, it tells you what percentage of your code has been executed during testing, which sounds like a solid indicator of quality. However, in practice, code coverage can sometimes give a false sense of confidence.

High code coverage does not automatically mean your software is bug-free. It’s possible to write tests that “touch” lines of code without verifying their correctness or edge cases. For example, you might achieve 90% coverage but still miss critical logic errors or unhandled exceptions. On the other hand, too little coverage often signals a lack of test depth, which can increase the risk of undetected failures in production.

The real value of code coverage lies in how you use it. Instead of chasing 100%, teams should focus on identifying which parts of the codebase matter most—like business-critical logic, security-sensitive functions, or integration points—and ensure those areas are well tested. Pairing code coverage with other quality practices such as mutation testing, static analysis, and peer reviews provides a more complete picture of software health.

What’s your perspective: do you treat code coverage as a benchmark to hit, or as just one part of a bigger quality strategy?