> We lose useful coverage and spend valuable time keeping these tags
> accurate through refactors (or worse, forget to do so).
>
> I've audited each test to confirm it is a general test of the
> subject class, where adding any called methods would be an accepted
> change, thus widening it is merely a no-op that clarifies intent
> and reduces maintenance. I am not disabling the "only track coverage
> of specified subject" benefits, nor am I claiming coverage in
> in classes outside the subject under test.
>
> Tracking tiny details per-method wastes time in keeping references
> in sync during refactors, time to realize (and fix) when people
> inevitably don't keep them in sync, time lost in finding uncovered
> code to write tests for only to realize it was already covered but
> not yet claimed, etc.
@note: Motivated by patches like these from Krinkle from time to time,
see: I133c7b707aab7ceb4f2ecd3be38bd4bd1b194143 for example.
Change-Id: Icff4b5a2e9ce2108c1653052624c76004048cc31
ff0bd2c434