It's always a question of balance and return of investment. It's good to aim for 100% coverage, but it's a diminishing return exercise and it may not be particularly valuable to reach it, so in practice it usually remains an aim.
> If you said that in an interview for code you'd written then I'd point to the door.
That's an extremely arrogant thing to say. Any experienced dev will understand my point, so...
Most programmers are arrogant and that's why they write terrible code full of bugs. I posted elsewhere that if your code isn't tested then it's broken. It was sitting at negative four when I last looked. That comment should be in the hundreds. If folk don't understand that then they need to look into their software development practices.
> If you said that in an interview for code you'd written then I'd point to the door.
That's an extremely arrogant thing to say. Any experienced dev will understand my point, so...