>> but this, your "100% test coverage" - that is pure slop.

Not really, but I can see why some people think that.

We treat 100% test coverage as "required, but by itself not sufficient". It doesn't give us false confidence that everything will be perfect or anything like that. But it provides us with the discipline to make sure no corners are cut, and the bugs that are fixed don't come back.

One refreshing aspect was that during PR reviews we stopped debating whether something needed test coverage. Instead we focused on what was being tested and how.