Are We Truly Covered? Unseen Risks in Software Testing

Table of Contents

1. Why 100% Coverage Isn’t the Goal
2. Why Risk-Based Testing Changed My Approach
3. My Go-To Strategic QA Framework
4. Final Thoughts

A few years ago, I was part of a release where everything looked perfect on paper. Our regression suite was green, the automation dashboards were clear, and we were confident about the go-live. But when users tried to check out using a promo code, the entire flow crashed.

It wasn’t a “missed bug” in the traditional sense—it was a gap in our test coverage thinking. We had tested all the usual cases, but no one asked, “What happens if the promo code has expired?”

That moment taught me something: software testing isn’t about checking boxes or hitting 100% coverage metrics. It’s about understanding risk, business impact, and user scenarios that numbers alone can’t capture.

Why 100% Coverage Isn’t the Goal

I often hear teams proudly say, “We hit 95% code coverage!” But the reality is—100% coverage doesn’t mean 100% confidence.

Even industry leaders agree:

• Google calls 75% commendable and 90% exemplary. [SonarSource]
• Atlassian says 80% is strong. [Atlassian]
• Microsoft advises 60–70% minimum, ideally 70–80%. [Microsoft Learn]

So instead of obsessing over vanity metrics, the real focus should be on meaningful coverage - covering critical paths and high-risk features.

In my own experience, I’ve seen teams spend weeks automating obscure conditions just to push coverage up, while checkout flows or authentication barely had deep test cases. When production bugs hit, those “vanity numbers” offered no comfort.

Also Read: What to Automate First: A 1–5 Scoring Framework for Prioritizing Test Cases

Why Risk-Based Testing Changed My Approach

That promo-code disaster made me rethink. I started applying Risk-Based Testing (RBT)—a strategy where you test based on impact + likelihood.

And it works:

• Teams using RBT see a 30–40% increase in defect detection. [Compunnel]
• Organizations report a 35% higher ROI. [ShiftAsia]
• Early risk-based testing reduces costly post-release fixes. [TestRail]
  

In one fintech project I worked on, we used RBT to prioritize login, payments, and refunds over less critical flows. The result?

• 45% fewer production defects
• Regression cycle cut from 3 days to 6 hours
• 80% coverage in critical modules

Those numbers didn’t just come from more tests—they came from smarter prioritization.

Also Read: Top 10 Accessibility Testing Tools

My Go-To Strategic QA Framework

Over time, I’ve built a practical framework that combines coverage and risk:

• Define Coverage Goals – Aim for 70–80% on critical code. Focus on logic branches, not just lines.
• Use an RTM (Requirement Traceability Matrix) – Map every requirement to a test. This instantly exposes gaps.
• Apply RBT Prioritization – Always ask: If this fails in production, how badly will it hurt?
• Automate Wisely – UI flows (Selenium/Playwright) + API tests (Postman/RestAssured). Save exploratory/manual for edge cases.
• Review Frequently – Hold bi-weekly test coverage reviews with devs + product.
• Integrate into CI/CD – Let pipelines continuously validate coverage and risks.

Final Thoughts

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from both failures and successes, it’s this:

• Don’t chase numbers—chase meaningful confidence.
• Don’t test everything equally—test what matters most.
• Don’t assume coverage is static—evolve with every sprint.

When you combine targeted coverage, risk-driven prioritization, and continuous feedback, QA stops being a cost center and becomes a true business enabler.

And the next time a promo-code bug tries to sneak into production—you’ll already be ahead of it.