It seems that the premise for the questioning about a test assumes - thereās none documentation about WHAT the test is testingā¦and even considering the requirement COVERAGEā¦if that coverage is already covered by some other more stable test, or despite the test being flaky itās coverage that being lost and requires manual testingā¦ - is that so ?
A strategy to minimize this - why not consider having a sort of standard/required procedure for having a @javadoc (or anything equivalent) explaining (w/ a required peer review) whats the goal of the test, to avoid going over the code ?