Suggested content rewrite

[YakshitAgarwal]

The following content seems to be partially correct and could use some clarification. The path to the content is:
public/content/developers/docs/smart-contracts/testing
The content is:
"Tests should have good code coverage, otherwise you may get "false negatives" which happen a contract passes all tests, but vulnerabilities still exist in the code."
The rewrite for the above text should go like:
"Tests should have good code coverage to minimize the risk of untested vulnerabilities. Without sufficient coverage, you might falsely assume your contract is secure because all tests pass, while vulnerabilities still exist in untested code paths."
Explanation:

1. Code Coverage and "False Negatives":
   Code coverage measures how much of your code is executed during testing. High code coverage ensures that most (or all) lines of your code have been tested at least once.
   Low code coverage can indeed lead to untested portions of code where vulnerabilities or bugs may reside. This might create a false sense of security, as your tests pass without actually verifying the behavior of the untested code.

2. Misinterpretation of "False Negatives":
   Technically, a false negative in testing occurs when the test fails to detect an issue that exists. In the context of your statement, what you're describing is not a "false negative" but rather uncovered vulnerabilities or bugs due to inadequate test coverage.

[konopkja]

"Misinterpretation of "False Negatives":
Technically, a false negative in testing occurs when the test fails to detect an issue that exists. In the context of your statement, what you're describing is not a "false negative" but rather uncovered vulnerabilities or bugs due to inadequate test coverage."

read as AI generated text, needs edits before PR for reader.

[YakshitAgarwal]

I am a little confused on what you are trying to tell here. Should I change the rewrite of the content or the explanation?

[konopkja]

aah sorry my bad, i thought the two points are part of the content that should be added, but now i see its just more clarification.

[konopkja]

so the new text is just this right?

"Tests should have good code coverage to minimize the risk of untested vulnerabilities. Without sufficient coverage, you might falsely assume your contract is secure because all tests pass, while vulnerabilities still exist in untested code paths."

if so i think it looks good and anyone can make PR with the edit.

[YakshitAgarwal]

Yes

[konopkja]

Okay, this needs a contributor to submit PR with the edit now

[YakshitAgarwal]

Thanks for the help!

[isabelladebrito]

Hi @YakshitAgarwal and @konopkja! Is this PR related to the issue? #14499

If yes, @konopkja can you please assign @YakshitAgarwal to this issue - so it prevents someone else to work on it? Thanks!

[YakshitAgarwal]

Yes it is.

[YakshitAgarwal]

Hi @isabelladebrito, actually this is my first time contributing. I wanted to ask, does the acceptance of PR actually take long interval or is it like less than a day?

[konopkja]

Hi @isabelladebrito, actually this is my first time contributing. I wanted to ask, does the acceptance of PR actually take long interval or is it like less than a day?

Welcome aboard! Merging PRs can take a while depending on the current commitment situation. Right now the core team is finishing big release and it may take extra time before reviewing and merging your PR.

Sorry for inconvenience, but I hope you can understand. Do not worry it will be reviewed and not forgotten :)

[YakshitAgarwal]

Sure, its no biggie!

[YakshitAgarwal]

Hey @konopkja, you can close this issue now. The PR has been mergered. Thanks