[GrumpyYoungMan]

> I've also heard that code coverage is a terrible metric and can cause bad unit test practices, trying to cover all lines of codes instead of trying to test for specific behaviors. ... (quality of the unit tests might be questionable sometimes as we aren't testing for all behaviors only ensuring all code is covered) ...

Ugh, code coverage is _not_ a metric. Tell your team and your managers: "A high code coverage number is not the end goal; working code is the end goal." Code coverage simply tells you where you did and (more importantly did _not_) check for problems; the point is to consciously examine the code paths not covered and decide what unit tests are needed there, if any. It's perfectly fine for to say "This particular code does not need to be covered." or "This code path isn't practical to validate except in integration testing, therefore we'll forego a unit test and notify the QA team.", as long as the decision is reviewed and approved the same as one would do code review.