Excellent post ... one suggestion. I would prefer to see mutation testing with something like PIT instead of vanilla test coverage because it incorporates some level of test quality instead of pure path execution.
Thanks for the feedback! I will cover mutation testing in another blog. I would see mutation testing rather as tool for exploring what kind of tests are missing. It can also be time consuming to run.
Mutation Testing says definetly more than code coverage about the effectiveness of the test suite. Still the benefit of code coverage is that it is fast and stable and can easily be integrated into a build step checking the threshold. So I would personally use both - code coverage and mutation testing.
Excellent post ... one suggestion. I would prefer to see mutation testing with something like PIT instead of vanilla test coverage because it incorporates some level of test quality instead of pure path execution.
Thanks for the feedback! I will cover mutation testing in another blog. I would see mutation testing rather as tool for exploring what kind of tests are missing. It can also be time consuming to run.
Mutation Testing says definetly more than code coverage about the effectiveness of the test suite. Still the benefit of code coverage is that it is fast and stable and can easily be integrated into a build step checking the threshold. So I would personally use both - code coverage and mutation testing.