In Agile and fast-moving development environments, code coverage often sparks debate. On one hand, it gives teams a quantifiable metric to track testing progress. On the other, it can create a false sense of security if used incorrectly.

From what I’ve seen, the challenge is how we interpret coverage:

• High coverage ≠ high quality: You can test every line but still miss bugs if assertions are weak.

• Low coverage ≠ poor quality: A focused set of tests that validate critical business logic may be more valuable than covering trivial getters/setters.

• Agile trade-offs: Sprints demand speed, so teams sometimes prioritize delivering features over improving coverage. But this can backfire if regression bugs slip in.

• Balanced approach: Pairing coverage with practices like continuous integration, end-to-end tests, and static analysis often yields better results than chasing numbers alone.

Some modern tools are taking interesting approaches here. For example, platforms like Keploy generate test cases automatically from real user traffic. This not only reduces the manual effort of writing tests but also improves code coverage where it matters most—on actual user flows—rather than forcing teams to artificially chase percentages.

Curious to hear from others—do you set code coverage goals in your Agile projects, or do you treat it more as an informative metric?