3 ms·
they did black box unit test instead of proper unit test. e.g. if a method is private, it's not tested. that's the usual way when full reliability is not wort
by gcb0 10y ago
they did black box unit test instead of proper unit test.
e.g. if a method is private, it's not tested.
that's the usual way when full reliability is not worth the dev time, or when devs think functional tests only are enough but still want a tap on the back for having unit tests and coverage numbers.
in their case it's the later as you can see for: "Controller tests also exercise a lot of the code paths in your application"
classical functional tests being called unit tests excuse. not that functional is better or worse, but correct names are better no matter what.
- jurre 10y agoThey don't call them unit tests though do they?
- Jtsummers 10y agoThe thing about unit testing is that you have to decide what your "unit" is. It could be down to the function/method level, but that's not always appropriate. Such a strict testing framework can leave you immobilized when you want or need to refactor. Their HTTP API is their interface for the application. It makes a great deal of sense to focus on that level for their testing (note: they didn't say they didn't test internals, they said they focused on the external interfaces).