17 ms·
No, in fact, we don’t use coded tests at all, deliverables are tested by the product owner(s). On the code level, we hardly see bugs, not even when refactoring.
by cygned 7y ago
No, in fact, we don’t use coded tests at all, deliverables are tested by the product owner(s). On the code level, we hardly see bugs, not even when refactoring. I often wonder if it is luck or expertise, and whether we would benefit from writing tests.
- binarnosp 7y agoMaybe you hardly see bugs because you don't test for them.
- mattmanser 7y agoI used to wonder the same thing, until I inherited a project with tests. The tests never caught a bug for the first 3 years. Got in the way a lot though. Then they finally caught 1. Not worth it.
- jlangr 7y agoI don't see unit tests "catch bugs" often, either, in the sense that the CI build fails due to defective code pushed up. And even with TDD, I don't often find myself breaking a lot of things that were already working, though it does happen. In those infrequent cases, it's extremely valuable to know I broke stuff that was working. I.e., it's pretty sad to ship changes that broke other behaviors, things you had the faintest clue that you were impacting. What I do see gobs of, when doing TDD, is the tests preventing crap code from getting integrated in the first place, i.e. when I or others first write the code (or change the code of others). From the testing perspective, that's the real thing they do--gate the defects from ever leaving your desktop, and in a far faster manner than most other routes. Unless, of course, one is a perfect coder. In any case, TDD has more important benefits that I've also gotten. Easily worth it for me.
- garmaine 7y agoIf you tested, you wouldn’t have to wonder.
- cygned 7y agoThat’s Schrödinger's unit test, I guess.