ANcpLua Mutation-Resistant Coverage
Core principle
Branches are not equal. A branch where success vs failure changes
observable behavior is worth a test. A branch where two formatting outputs
differ by a whitespace is not. You enumerate semantically distinct
outcomes, write one high-signal test per outcome, and coverage falls out as
a side effect.
You never write a test whose only purpose is to enter a branch.
When to invoke
- Pushing a file toward 100% branch coverage.
- A mutation-testing run (Stryker, Infection, Pitest, Mutmut) reports surviving mutants and you need to kill them.
- Opening a PR where the coverage gate demands more tests and you want to add them without producing cosmetics.
Semantic branch taxonomy
Classify every condition in the target:
| Class | Example | Test required? |
|---|---|---|
success vs failure |
try/catch, Result.Ok / Result.Err |
Yes, both sides |
empty vs non-empty |
items.length === 0, null collection |
Yes, both sides |
valid vs invalid |
schema validation, type narrowing | Yes, both sides |
authorized vs unauthorized |
role / permission check | Yes, both sides |
cached vs uncached |
memoization, TTL expiry | Yes, both sides |
primary vs fallback |
network → cache, default → override | Yes, both sides |
new vs existing |
create vs update, insert vs upsert | Yes, both sides |
defensive |
guard where caller already enforces the invariant | Consider deleting the branch |
cosmetic |
whitespace-only format variants | No; one test is enough |
Workflow
Step 1 — Enumerate
Read the target file. Produce a branch map:
| Location | Branch | Class | Needs test? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
file.ts:42 |
items.length === 0 |
empty/non-empty | yes | both sides |
file.ts:88 |
user.role === 'admin' |
auth/unauth | yes | both sides |
file.ts:104 |
if (!input) |
defensive | no | callers enforce; propose deletion |
Step 2 — Audit existing tests per branch
For each needs test = yes row, find the existing test(s). Grade them with
the judging-test-quality rubric. A branch is "covered" only by a STRONG
or ACCEPTABLE test. WEAK or KILL does not count as coverage.
Step 3 — Write the missing tests
Apply the patterns from improving-weak-tests. For every test, name the
mutation it catches (in the commit message, not as a comment in the test).
Step 4 — Run coverage
Use the project's tool. Report both numbers:
- Branch coverage % — the floor.
- Mutation score % (if a tool is configured) — the signal.
Step 5 — Remaining gaps
Any uncovered branch after step 4 falls into exactly one bucket:
| Bucket | Action |
|---|---|
| Architecturally blocked (no seam to reach it) | Hand to reviewing-testability. Do not paper over. |
| Dead defensive code | Propose deletion of the branch. |
| Genuinely unreachable | Mark with an exhaustive-check in the code (assertNever, pattern-match-all), not a test. |
Hard rules
- Never write a test whose sole purpose is to enter a branch.
- Never count
WEAK/KILLtests as coverage. - Never suppress coverage or analyzer warnings to claim completion.
- Never leave a success branch covered without its failure sibling.
- Never celebrate a coverage percentage without the mutation score.
If mutation testing is available
Run it. Examples of invocations:
- JS/TS:
npx stryker run - .NET:
dotnet stryker - PHP:
vendor/bin/infection - Python:
mutmut run - Java:
mvn org.pitest:pitest-maven:mutationCoverage
Surviving mutants are your backlog. Each surviving mutant points at a test
that should have died and did not. Rewrite that test via
improving-weak-tests.
Output
Three sections:
- Branch map — the table from step 1.
- Tests added — diff blocks per test, each naming the mutation caught.
- Remaining gaps — table with bucket and action per remaining branch.
Final line in this exact shape:
Branch coverage: X% (up from Y%). Mutation score: P% (up from Q%). STRONG+ACCEPTABLE tests added: N. Architectural gaps: k. Dead-branch deletions proposed: m.
Related
- Upstream cause of why branches are hard to cover:
reviewing-testability. - Grading existing tests:
judging-test-quality. - Rewriting individual weak tests:
improving-weak-tests.