2 ms·

If somebody hands over an application to me where configs have unit tests, this means to me that the application can fail catastrophically under certain (unwant

If somebody hands over an application to me where configs have unit tests, this means to me that the application can fail catastrophically under certain (unwanted) configurations. And seeing how I might be the owner of said applications, chances are high that at some point I would need to change the configs. I, personally, would rather prefer straightforward static configuration and very well written documentation on why certain configurations make more sense than others. That way, I know how and when to change something in the configs. I absolutely do not share the view that "tests are documentation", because they do not communicate the most important thing in software engineering - the intent and reasoning behind a certain design.

jt2190 7y ago
> If somebody hands over an application to me where configs have unit tests, this means to me that the application can fail catastrophically under certain (unwanted) configurations This would be a sign of a program that allowed input (configuration, in this case) that was unsafe. That is completely a different matter to whether a programing language is suitable for defining configuration. I suspect that many an application has been written that assumes that because it's consuming "static" configuration that is a simple text file, or a structured data file, that the input is completely safe. (SQL injection can come from any direction.)