[yummyfajitas]

Similarly, if anyone advocates more test coverage, we should automatically assume they want 100% quickcheck-like coverage testing all possible occurrences including power outages, network cables being unplugged, etc. What nonsense! How could anyone get work done in a place like that?

Or, to use a political example, if anyone advocates more regulation of X, it's incumbent on them to explicitly explain they aren't actually advocating Stalism.

This gives us an easy way to dismiss all views we disagree with without even having to consider the actual proposal.

[jbooth]

"More test coverage" isn't actionable, and if you try to act on it then you'll make stupid tests that don't help, waste effort, and hinder later refactoring efforts. "I'm worried about the foo module, do we have test coverage for this type of failure" is reasonable.

And I'd similarly pile on anyone who asked for quote "more regulation" without specifying so much as an industry and type of behavior to be regulated.

[yummyfajitas]

In the context of a conversation about module foo and all the KeyError exceptions it's raising, a charitable person would interpret "more test coverage" as "write tests that look for KeyError's in module foo." An uncharitable person would make the leap I described in my previous post.

Note to self: don't hire pedantic employees who interpret my statements in the most unreasonable way possible just to prove a point.