12 ms·
> Writing that test for the single expression setter won't cost you a lot. Yeah, usually it won't cost anything to the guy who writes the test, but he is actua
by repomies691 10y ago
> Writing that test for the single expression setter won't cost you a lot.
Yeah, usually it won't cost anything to the guy who writes the test, but he is actually paid. What it costs to the business/customer/etc and whether the value added is worth of the cost is totally different matter.
I think there is clear incentive for writing unnecessary tests for certain developers - it is non-risky general work, where it is is difficult to fuck up anyway. If you are able to sell test-writing hours, what's the downside?
- vesak 10y agoDifficult to even imagine a project that could fail business-wise because some developer wrote too many easy unit tests. Do you know of such cases?
- repomies691 10y agoI know cases where too much focus on tests might be reason for a startup failure. Eg. instead of trying to find the product-market fit, resources are spent building tests, and then funding runs out. Of course it is very difficult to argue whether test writing was the issue or something else, and people have different incentives related to that.
- bryanrasmussen 10y agoprobably won't fail business-wise, but will cost incrementally more for each test business-wise.
- vesak 10y agoSignificantly?
- repomies69 10y agoDepends on the business case. I don't think this answer can be generalized either way. You can lose a business because of the heavy costs which add little value, however it is not easily arguable that a specific cost was the deal-breaker.
- couchand 10y agoBoy it would be great if writing code that added features could also be that safe and difficult to screw up.