3 ms·
I generally agree with your points, with one exception: > If the next release window is a year away and/or if people are harmed by a faulty product then you pr
by inetknght 7y ago
I generally agree with your points, with one exception:
> If the next release window is a year away and/or if people are harmed by a faulty product then you probably want it painstakingly manually tested.
No, you manual testing should only be for the things which are difficult to automatically test. But I think you should _always_ strive for extensive automatic testing. Even with hardware which doesn't yet exist, mocks are perfect for that.
- alkonaut 7y agoAgreed. Whether something is manually or automatically tested is really an implementation detail, but it’s economically insane to not have computers do the testing to the largest extent possible. It’s also possible to extend the argument to the relation between “compiler verification” and “test verification”. That is: don’t spend time writing tests for things a compiler could catch.