[kristiandupont]

>hasn't reduced the number of paths to test

But it has: it's now tested, and you don't need to write tests for it next time you want to use it.

>100% test coverage is rarely a good thing

Not sure what your argument is here. Sure, it may not be helpful but are you saying that one should strive for less than 100% coverage, because "it's rarely good"?

[mtreis86]

100% coverage is rarely worth the time, unless it's an engine controller or something else that needs the assurances.

[Confusion]

If tjmehta likes to cover his open source code 100%, under whatever metric, by God let's encourage him in that and not start a discussion about the economic sense of it!