[bvrmn]

Could you elaborate with python-oriented examples? I tend to agree for static typing languages like Java — to fully test you have to go a total DI path. It leads to bloat and additional layers. I don't see anything similar for python because you have to do nothing to bring your code into a test environment.

> Testing is a tool, you can't let it turn into a goal.

Yep, and I use testing as a tool to be sure we ship quality code. It's 2x important for our case, we don't have control on hosts where our product is run and 100% coverage was a salvation. We even start to ship new versions without any manual QA.

[hbrn]

My examples are just personal anecdotes, you can dismiss them by saying "our team won't make the same mistake".

If your goal is 100% coverage then it will turn testing into ritual and only give you the illusion of quality. Instead of testing inputs and edge cases, you will focus on testing lines of code.

There's a good illustration of uselessness of 100% coverage in one of Raymond Hettinger talks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARKbfWk4Xyw

> I use testing as a tool to be sure we ship quality code

I suspect we have different definitions of quality, and your might include testing, so I doubt I will be able to convince you.