3 ms·
The difference with test-driven development and continuous integration is that everyone relies very heavily on the tests. So, there is no necessity to check the
by auxbuss 16y ago
The difference with test-driven development and continuous integration
is that everyone relies very heavily on the tests. So, there is no
necessity to check the tests, you start from a position of knowing that
the tests are complete.
The NASA issue could equally have been caught by better testing. It's
hard to debate that point, because we don't know the strength of the
testing in that case. Other than it was clearly not adequate.
Regarding your last point: I find that having excellent unit tests and
coverage means that I can concentrate singularly on the design problem
at hand and experiment very broadly without any fear of regression.
That's an enormously liberating place to be.
- kenjackson 16y agoI should be clearer. Tests are great. Static strong typing is a built-in automatic test that hits all my code at compile time with known semantics. I like that testing also.
- bad_user 16y agoThe tests themselves can be broken too. Test-driven development also requires a sustained effort to not miss all the possibilities of something going wrong. Developers aren't wired like that, that's why many companies have QA engineers (i.e. people specialized in breaking things). And not everyone has the resources to do test-driven development. Sure it helps in the long run, just like eating healthy and going to the gym, but when your software was supposed to get released yesterday and you ain't done ... tell me you're thinking about branch / path coverage.