Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Microsoft GH-300 Exam - Topic 3 Question 3 Discussion

Why is code reviewing still necessary when using GitHub Copilot to write tests?
C) Because GitHub Copilot's generated test cases may not cover all possible scenarios.
A) Because GitHub Copilot can cover all possible scenarios in your test cases.
B) Because GitHub Copilot generates the best code possible for the test scenario.
D) Because GitHub Copilot replaces the need for manual testing.

Microsoft GH-300 Exam - Topic 3 Question 3 Discussion

Actual exam question for Microsoft's GH-300 exam
Question #: 3
Topic #: 3
[All GH-300 Questions]

Why is code reviewing still necessary when using GitHub Copilot to write tests?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

Code review is necessary because GitHub Copilot's generated test cases might not cover all possible scenarios, especially edge cases and complex interactions.


by Joanna at Aug 16, 2025, 09:03 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium GH-300 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Gail
9 months ago
Copilot is helpful, but it’s not perfect.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ming
9 months ago
Wait, does Copilot really cover everything? I'm not so sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jerry
10 months ago
Totally agree, can't rely solely on AI for testing!
upvoted 0 times
...
Trinidad
10 months ago
Manual testing is still a must, no doubt about it!
upvoted 0 times
...
Eric
10 months ago
Code reviews catch edge cases that Copilot might miss.
upvoted 0 times
...
Desiree
10 months ago
I think I read somewhere that even AI-generated tests need to be reviewed to ensure quality. So, C sounds right to me!
upvoted 0 times
...
Leonard
11 months ago
I thought Copilot was supposed to be really good, but I guess it can't replace the need for human oversight. So, D seems wrong.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rhea
11 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like we practiced a question about the limitations of AI in generating tests. Maybe that's related to this?
upvoted 0 times
...
Raul
11 months ago
I remember discussing how Copilot can miss edge cases, so I think option C makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elena
11 months ago
Wait, does this mean Copilot can't replace manual testing? I'm not sure I follow the logic on that one.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marget
11 months ago
Okay, I think I've got it. The key here is that Copilot's generated test cases may not cover everything, so code reviewing is still necessary.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kiley
11 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused. I thought Copilot was supposed to generate the best code, but this question is making me doubt that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Merilyn
12 months ago
This is a tricky one. I'm not sure if GitHub Copilot can really cover all possible scenarios in test cases.
upvoted 0 times
...
Toi
12 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure Copilot can ever replace human judgment. Option C is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aja
1 year ago
I agree with Alisha. Copilot is a powerful tool, but it's not a substitute for careful code review and testing.
upvoted 0 times
Willard
1 year ago
I agree, Copilot can be helpful but it's important to double check for any missed scenarios.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dorethea
1 year ago
I think C is the correct answer. We still need to review the test cases generated by Copilot to ensure all scenarios are covered.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Alisha
1 year ago
Option C is clearly the right answer. GitHub Copilot is great, but it can't predict every possible scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Trina
1 year ago
I think code reviewing is still necessary because GitHub Copilot may not cover all scenarios.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel