Goglides Dev 🌱

Dev Leader
Dev Leader

Posted on • Originally published at devleader.ca

Why Test Coverage Can Be Misleading – How To Avoid False Confidence

Software testing is a critical aspect of ensuring that code is of good quality. By testing applications, coders can identify where their code is weak and correct it. One of the various types of testing methodologies is test coverage, which is used to ensure that each line of code is covered by at least one test. However, relying solely on test coverage can create a false sense of confidence in the quality of code. Test coverage cannot ensure that the code is highly performant and that it runs error-free when used in unpredictable ways. This article will discuss why test coverage can be misleading, as well as explore other software testing methodologies that can be used to ensure software quality.

The Importance of Software Testing

In the software development process, testing plays a significant role in ensuring that the final product is of high quality. Testing catches bugs and integration issues, as well as ensuring that the software meets performance requirements. If you’re not taking testing seriously in your software development, it’s time to start!

Unit Tests, Functional Tests, and Others

There are multiple testing methodologies used in software development, such as unit testing, integration/functional testing, acceptance testing, and system/end-to-end testing. Each methodology has its own advantages and disadvantages, making none of them universally superior. For example, unit testing assesses if each component of the software functions as expected, while system testing assesses if the software meets stakeholder requirements.

It’s important to strike a balance between different testing strategies to ensure maximum code quality and full bug detection. Testing strategies must be tailored to the specific project requirements and constraints. In other words, development teams must strategically choose which testing methodologies will best benefit the project.

If you want to see my thoughts on what kind of tests are best, then check out this video:

Limitations With Testing

However, testing does have its limitations. Even the most thorough testing process cannot account for every possible use case, and it may not catch every bug. Additionally, testing can be time-consuming and cost-prohibitive depending on the code base and state of the product. Therefore, understanding the limitations of testing is crucial in the software development process.

Understanding Test Coverage

Test coverage is a measure of how much of a software program has been covered by automated testing. The idea is to ensure that every line of code is executed by one or more tests. By achieving high test coverage, software development teams aim to detect as many bugs and vulnerabilities as possible. In theory, the more lines of code covered the more confidence we have in being able to make changes to our code.

The key point here is “in theory”.

Benefits of Test Coverage

The benefits of test coverage are numerous. First, it helps detect certain types of bugs, such as syntax errors or simple coding mistakes. Let’s face it, we’ve all copy+pasted code and forgotten to update it accordingly! By running automated tests that look for specific issues and vulnerabilities, we can gain confidence in our ability to safely make changes.

Second, automated testing is faster and more efficient than manual testing, which can save software development teams time and money. The fact that it’s automated means it should be repeatable time and time again. This is something that’s hard to rely on humans to do effectively.

The Limitations of Test Coverage

Despite its benefits, test coverage is not without its limitations. Relying solely on test coverage can lead to false confidence in code quality. A high test coverage rate does not necessarily mean that the entire codebase has been thoroughly tested for quality assurance. Certain types of bugs, such as those caused by complex interactions between different pieces of code, are difficult to detect with automated testing alone. As such, test coverage should be viewed as a complement to other testing methodologies rather than the sole measure of software quality.

Understanding the difference even between line coverage and branch coverage can make a big difference. Just because a single if-statement has line coverage, it doesn’t mean that each possible combination of conditions to trigger it has been evaluated. And even if you managed to have this, what’s to say that you have all of the necessary assertions to prove your logic?

While test coverage is extremely helpful in software development, it’s not a silver bullet. To maximize code quality and bug detection, software development teams should supplement test coverage with other testing methodologies, including manual code reviews and exploratory testing. By using a comprehensive approach to software quality assurance, teams can ensure that their code is rigorously tested for vulnerabilities and bugs.

Balancing Testing Strategies

To ensure maximum code quality and full bug detection, software development teams must balance the use of different testing strategies. While test coverage can be a valuable testing tool, it should be supplemented with other factors for comprehensive testing.

Review Code With Others

Manual code reviews involve a developer manually examining code to ensure it meets certain standards and does not contain any errors. It’s very common for development organizations to have a code review or pull request “gate” that requires others to sign off on things.

Treat these seriously! Don’t just blindly check-off that you approve without looking at how the tests that were introduced help ensure the logic being changes. No tests added/updated?! Even more reason to speak up.

Systems can automatically enforce a code coverage gate, but these can be gamed. I still think the best way to improve this is to have a team culture where folks believe in reviewing the types of tests being added.

Exploratory Testing

Exploratory testing, on the other hand, involves a tester exploring the software to uncover any potential issues that may have been missed by automated testing. I’ve struggled to see this done well in the past, often because individuals in manual testing roles focused too much on the repeated test cases — the exact kind of test that I would want to have covered in automation.

However, having folks use the software — even clients or alpha/beta testers — if you have telemetry can be super helpful to get a better sense of where issues might come up and where you may want to add more tests… Even if the coverage is already high, there can be escapes!

Collaborate Across Roles

To use a holistic approach to software quality assurance, engineering managers should encourage collaboration between testers, developers, and product owners throughout the software development process. By involving testers (or if you don’t have a dedicated tester role, then another human at least) in the development process from the beginning, teams can identify potential issues earlier, allowing them to be addressed before the code is released.

Engineering managers should also prioritize clear communication between team members. By communicating expectations and progress updates often, team members can coordinate their efforts to ensure all areas of the software are being tested. This approach promotes transparency and collaboration, which can ultimately lead to higher quality software. Engineering managers should try to help establish a culture of testing being important but not purely from lines of code covered — but rather thinking about testing critically.

By balancing the use of different testing methodologies and promoting collaboration and communication, engineering managers and software development teams can achieve maximum code quality and full bug detection. And remember, we need to stay pragmatic about our approach to testing, which I discuss in this video:

Understanding Why Test Coverage Can Be Misleading

In this article, we discussed how relying solely on test coverage in software development can be misleading. Although test coverage helps in detecting certain types of bugs, it’s not a guarantee for code quality assurance. On our software engineering teams, we should aim to balance different testing methodologies to ensure maximum code quality and full bug detection.

It’s important to understand the benefits and limitations of test coverage and view it as a complement instead of a replacement for other software testing strategies. Using a holistic approach to software quality assurance can help minimize the risk of bugs and software failures, which can lead to severe consequences like data loss and financial damage. There is no single “best” way to test for all situations.

The key takeaway from this article is that test coverage should be viewed as a tool in our software testing toolbox rather than a sole indicator of code quality. Strive to supplement it with other testing methodologies and use the appropriate mix to ensure the highest software quality. If you’re interested in more learning opportunities, subscribe to my free weekly newsletter and check out my YouTube channel!

FAQ: Why Test Coverage Can Be Misleading

What are the different testing methodologies available?

Some of the main testing methodologies available include unit testing, integration testing, system testing, acceptance testing, and regression testing. Each methodology has its own strengths and weaknesses and should be selected based on the specific needs and context of a project. There are even more classifications that development teams will refer to when it comes to testing.

Why can test coverage be misleading?

Test coverage can be misleading as it only measures the degree of code that has been tested and does not guarantee that the code is correct or free from bugs. It can also create a false sense of security as it misses edge cases and may not be able to detect complex issues. It’s important to supplement test coverage with other testing methodologies and manual review processes to ensure maximum code quality and full bug detection.

What are the benefits of test coverage?

Test coverage can help detect certain types of bugs and improve the overall quality of code. It also provides a cost-effective way to test large amounts of code and saves time over manual testing methods. Additionally, test coverage can help reveal code that is not being used and can be eliminated to decrease complexity.

What are the limitations of test coverage?

Test coverage can create false confidence in code quality if it is over relied on. It also has limitations in terms of detecting certain types of bugs and corner cases, which may require other testing methodologies. Additionally, test coverage may not test the system as a whole, instead focusing on individual components.

How can engineering managers and software development teams balance testing strategies?

Engineering managers and software development teams can balance testing strategies by using a holistic approach to software quality assurance. This involves supplementing test coverage with other testing methodologies such as manual code reviews and exploratory testing. It is also important to continuously monitor and reevaluate the effectiveness of the testing strategy and adjust it as necessary to ensure maximum code quality.

Want More Dev Leader Content?

  • Follow along on this platform if you haven’t already!

  • Subscribe to my free weekly software engineering and dotnet-focused newsletter. I include exclusive articles and early access to videos:


  • Looking for courses? Check out my offerings:


  • Watch hundreds of full-length videos on my YouTube channel:


  • Visit my website for hundreds of articles on various software engineering topics (including code snippets):


  • Check out the repository with many code examples from my articles and videos on GitHub:


The post Why Test Coverage Can Be Misleading – How To Avoid False Confidence appeared first on Dev Leader.

Top comments (0)