3 ms·
I'm a bit skeptical of a paper written by a consulting company that specializes in QA services and training. Understanding a codebase well enough to write usefu
by kevinmhickey 10y ago
I'm a bit skeptical of a paper written by a consulting company that specializes in QA services and training. Understanding a codebase well enough to write useful unit tests is very time consuming and difficult. Teaching devs the same requires domain, development and process skills. Other forms of testing (e.g. end-to-end, browser based, and manual) are much easier for an outside organization to apply based on rules in a BRD or user manual. It stands to reason that a company would write a white paper that nudges customers to a methodology that favors them.
- jernfrost 10y agoHe has some points though. Unit testing has become a bit of a religion, where people almost write tests for the hell of it regardless of their value. Now I do usually test e.g. algorithms, but I find it rather wasteful to test dumb classes at the unit level as well as UI stuff. I've certainly felt what he pointed out about tests becoming a real hassle to maintain while not necessarily being very valuable to keep.
- mempko 10y agoCope, the author, was writing about this for a long time. His history precedes him. It's not some random consultant with no experience.