Continuous Delivery | Testing | Kanban | Programming | Software Engineering | ScrumCode Coverage Is Killing You
August 16, 2021
Neil Chaudhuri

Neil Chaudhuri

Twitter

If you are a software engineer or run software projects, code coverage is probably very important to you. It's intuitive. Of course more tests produce better software! It's easy to calculate. Tools, automation, and stunning charts to impress the people who pay for the occasional pizza are all readily available.

The problem is code coverage is killing you.

Don't get me wrong. You deserve credit for your agile commitment to quality and your investment in continuous integration and continuous delivery. But why does just about everything out there say 100% code coverage is at best unrealistic and at worst dangerous? How can achieving a perfect score on a great metric be a bad thing? But OK. What's the optimal number then? There are a lot of heuristics, but no one really knows.

All of this uncertainty over an apparent no-brainer should give you pause, but it is important to understand the main reasons why code coverage is so flawed.

Code coverage assumes all your code is equally vulnerable

Let's say your code includes a credit card validator. There is an infinite number of ways a string can fail credit card validation, but you only need a few tests to achieve 100% code coverage for it. Meanwhile other code may have far fewer failure scenarios. Ideally, that credit card validator should have hundreds of tests associated with it while other code has far fewer. Code coverage treats them all the same and only credits you for a small fraction of the tests necessary for your most vulnerable code, so you probably won't write any more than you have to. I believe that's what the kids call "perverse incentives."

Code coverage assumes all your code is equally valuable

Let's say your application also offers payment via money order. Almost no one will use that option; the vast majority of customers will pay by credit card. Code coverage doesn't know the difference, so it considers credit card tests and money order tests equally important. That's bad. A bug with credit card payments will cost you orders of magnitude more profit than a bug with money orders, but code coverage will never account for that.

Code coverage demands ceremony that may not be necessary

Let's not lose sight of the goal, which is to gain as much confidence as possible that your code works. Certainly that can come from tests, but it does not have to. For example, if you are building a component library in React that will be consumed by application developers, it could very well be Storybook is all you need. After all, a button in your component library will have no functionality on its own. Its functionality will come from the onClick event handler passed as a prop by the library consumer. All you care about is that clicking the button does something. It's a waste of time to write a test for something so trivial just to check a coverage box when Storybook gives you that for basically free. Of course, if you insist, you can also use Storybook stories as fixtures for your tests.

Code coverage tells you how much but not how well

This could be the worst of all. You are investing a lot of budget and schedule in building a test suite that should raise the quality of your software, lower costs, and improve customer satisfaction. But while code coverage tells you how much you tested, it doesn't tell you how well you tested. You can write really poor tests (e.g. tests that don't offer any challenging scenarios, tests that are flaky or slow, etc.) that yield 100% coverage. In the end, those tests might actually be counterproductive because the investment could have gone elsewhere and yielded some value.

Frankly, none of these concerns are debatable. The only real argument for code coverage is that for all its flaws it is still the best we can do. Obviously I cannot speak to your specific project, but my extensive experience suggests that your best case scenario--if you have a team of talented, disciplined engineers who have faced no deadline pressures to get features out fast--is that your dedication to high code coverage has improved quality but not nearly enough given how much you've spent trying. Instead, what's most likely is all your spending has produced mostly useless tests that exist to check a box rather than to improve quality, and your code is only barely better than with no tests at all.

The good news is we can do a lot better for a lot cheaper.

Percentage Metrics

Experience has shown me there are a lot better metrics than code coverage. Here is a good list of percentage metrics inspired by Kostis Kapelonis.

Percentage of Bugs Reproduced By Tests (Target: 100%). This is the best metric. Every bug reported by testers or users should have at least one test associated with it.

Percentage of Tests That Change (Target: 0%). Too often tests are coupled to implementation, so updates to your implementation details--a new technology, updated algorithm, etc--lead to laborious updates to tests. That should stop. Shifting away from conventional, scenario-based testing to property-based testing where possible can help.

Percentage of Consistent Tests (Target: 100%). Have you ever seen the same tests pass some days and fail others? That's not consistent, and engineers typically respond by disabling or commenting out offending tests. Instead, rewrite these tests to be deterministic unit tests, or delete them entirely.

Percentage of Developers Writing Tests (Target: 100%). Everyone who writes code should write tests, but it is important not to take this in a punitive direction. The purpose is not to uncover slackers; it's to grow a culture where all developers recognize test code deserves the same care as production code and to expose the entire team to the entire codebase to promote collective code ownership. If command-and-control types do try to use this metric to identify what they consider "weak performers," then get rid of it. It does more harm than good.

Trending Metrics

There are also trends to watch.

Low Code Quality in Tests. Tests are code. Your test code should be a first-class citizen subject to the same quality checks as production code--limited duplication, reusable functions, design patterns where useful, etc.

Time to Write Tests. Maybe the quality of your tests is too low. Maybe the design is poor with too many dependencies to mock. Maybe it's hard to generate test data or scenarios. Taking too long to write tests will manifest in diminishing velocity and more bugs. Better design and again property-based testing can help.

Time to Run Tests. One of the core tenets of agile development is rapid feedback, which is impossible if your tests take forever. This might be controversial, but I would recommend favoring unit tests and functional tests over integration tests. Unit tests are fast (when written properly). Functional tests give you the most accurate view on quality, and modern tools like Cypress can overcome the slowness and flakiness of older tools like Selenium. You can also get a boost from your tooling.

Keep these trend lines as low and as level as possible.

The best part about all of these metrics is that they are easily derived from your engineering tools. Nothing special is required of you. Of course you can always take the initiative to do some clever things specific to your domain like identifying particularly vulnerable and/or valuable parts of the codebase and ensuring there is a high level of coverage for that specific region of surface area.

In the end you should be able to look at every test in your code base and recognize how it gives you confidence that your code will work in production and that no one will be working weekends. The siren song of code coverage is intoxicating, but you can do so much better.