Developer just emailed our team a complaint that our logging assembly was resulting in their poor test coverage and they sent a change request to give them the ability to mock the underlying log provider (ex. from the event log to ‘something else’).

Looked at their tests, and they are testing whether or not the .Log was executed (on an exception, if the .Log method was not executed, the test failed), which seemed a bit worthless because we’ve already got coverage in our unit tests.
We had a meeting to discuss the issue.
Me: “I’m OK with changing the logging code if it’s necessary, but I want to understand why.”
DevA: “Logging errors is crucial to the database transaction. If someone removes the logging, the tests should fail.”
Me: “If someone removes the error logging on purpose, then they likely have an agenda and will remove the test validation too. It wouldn’t be an accident.”
DevA: “That’s not my problem. They will have to deal with HR.”
Me: “We purposely prevented someone from intercepting the logging just for that purpose. Your test code already covers the business rule, testing the logging seems out of place. That would like writing a test to make sure the System.IO.File.ReadAllText actually reads all the text from a file. You kinda assume a few smart Microsoft engineers already wrote tests for that.”
DevA: “Yea, I guess that would be silly.”

Got cc’ed an email a little bit ago from DevA to his boss..
“We’re not going to be able to change logging assembly. This may have some impact on our overall test coverage as those lines of code will not get testing coverage. You will have to let the DevMgr know we will not meet our test coverage goals.”

WTF!