3 ms·
> Also I think TDD is frankly ridiculous; I've seen many teams spending more money on gold-plating test lines of code than actual code. I don't see your point.
by rumanator 7y ago
> Also I think TDD is frankly ridiculous; I've seen many teams spending more money on gold-plating test lines of code than actual code.
I don't see your point. You'd still have the same problem if you had a team gold-plating some other code instead of doing their job. In fact, without TDD your problem is far worse because you don't have checks in place to evaluate if some code works as expected.
- WrtCdEvrydy 7y agoI like to do TDD (Test Driven Debugging). I have found it to be a bit lackluster for development (we write the feature, then tests up to 100% as snapshots), but for debugging there is nothing better than replicating the bug with a test, making a small change we believe to be the correct answer, and it works (or it doesn't).
- rhizome31 7y agoI call this DDT (Defect-Driven Testing) :)
- rumanator 7y agoIt's still TDD but a specific subset: issue/bug reports instead of feature requests.
- ehnto 7y agoThat's why I deploy straight to production. Crowd sourced QA testing! </joke>
- 0x445442 7y agoIt's actually not that far fetched. With some environments/orgs it's really next to impossible to test any other way than to push a canary release on some small set of users and start monitoring the logs.