The title may not be a direct quote but it's not an unfair heading to this comment. The comment clearly lines up with the sentiment of "anti-pattern", and it does speak to overall code coverage, not just specific line coverage. See:
> people writing completely useless tests [...] just to get 100% coverage
> To write 100% coverage tests, you tie yourself to implementation details that simply do not matter
> Test coverage is a false idol.
Even if you still don't think it lines up precisely with the intent of the comment, I think a much greater disconnect is necessary before something (that I consider) drastic like changing a submission's title.
Edit: Welp. I guess it's been decided. Personally, I find this new title fairly nonsensical (it's grammatically incorrect and taken from the post above the one that was actually submitted), weak, uninformative, and, well, just plain bad. This wasn't even a blog post, it was an excerpt from a conversation, so the "use the original title" rule doesn't apply. I have to say I strongly disagree with whoever changed it. For reference the original title was "100% code coverage is an anti-pattern".
Second edit: The rate of upvotes (and presumably views) has noticeably slowed down for this interesting submission since the title change, despite it still being prominent on the front page.
> people writing completely useless tests [...] just to get 100% coverage
> To write 100% coverage tests, you tie yourself to implementation details that simply do not matter
> Test coverage is a false idol.
Even if you still don't think it lines up precisely with the intent of the comment, I think a much greater disconnect is necessary before something (that I consider) drastic like changing a submission's title.
Edit: Welp. I guess it's been decided. Personally, I find this new title fairly nonsensical (it's grammatically incorrect and taken from the post above the one that was actually submitted), weak, uninformative, and, well, just plain bad. This wasn't even a blog post, it was an excerpt from a conversation, so the "use the original title" rule doesn't apply. I have to say I strongly disagree with whoever changed it. For reference the original title was "100% code coverage is an anti-pattern".
Second edit: The rate of upvotes (and presumably views) has noticeably slowed down for this interesting submission since the title change, despite it still being prominent on the front page.