>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.
Not to mention 100% coverage is not guarantee the system works, in practice quite the opposite
Not to mention this BDD crap which only makes my blood boil, it's syntactic yuck disguised as syntactic sugar