In article <ded6b237.0112100935.57024f11 / posting.google.com>, rbinder / rbsc.com (Bob Binder) wrote: > BTW, the apparent meaning of "adequate testing" in this thread is not > consistent with definition used in the testing community for over 15 > years: adequate testing must *at least* achieve statement coverage. > There are many other possible definitions of "adequate testing", but > if your tests don't at least reach all the code in the IUT, you can't > claim to be doing adequate testing. Although any definition of > "adequate testing" which attempts a more stringent criteria can be > falsified, many unambiguous non-subjective criteria for adequacy have > been useful in practice, but they don't include "I say so". Didn't the tests in the examples by Kent and Uncle Bob have 100% statement coverage, so by your definition, they are "adequate"?