3 ms·
It's not "the extra test case." It's literal exponential growth in the number of test cases as you add more and more toggles. It can still be justified to add
by sarah180 7y ago
It's not "the extra test case." It's literal exponential growth in the number of test cases as you add more and more toggles.
It can still be justified to add configuration options, but you can't safely test one feature in isolation and assume that it will never interact with any others.
- tomc1985 7y agoWe don't necessarily need every case to be testable, and even so thoughtful use of occams razor or something can prevent the kind of exponential worst-case scenarios that almost nobody wants. My problem is that contemporary software design seems to draw that line at a place that allows for few use-cases. It seems to be especially prevalent in modern enterprise stuff like Slack or Skype -- with the latter being a very good example of the old ways (e.g. original skype clients) regressing into the new ways (e.g. latest skype version).
- chx 7y agoIf you practice the minimum of separation of concerns then it won't be O(m*n) just O(m+n). Do you really need to test email notifications twice just because the channels no longer jump around in the channel list?