[jgbuddy]

This is of course true as a blanket "gotcha" headline- although I wouldn't call a failed test the CI itself failing. A real failure would be a false positive, a pass where there wasn't coverage, or a failure when there was no breaking change. Covering all of these edge cases can become as tiresome as maintaining the application in the first place (of course this is a generalization)

[chriswarbo]

> a pass where there wasn't coverage

I always feel obliged to point out that we can have 100% coverage without making a single assertion (beware Goodhart's law)

[n2d4]

True, but you can't have complete tests without 100% coverage. It's a necessary, but not a sufficient condition; as long as it doesn't become the sole goal, it's still a useful metric.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

100% coverage is an EXPTIME problem.