"usually"..."basically"..."probably"...that's a lot of handwaving. Your usecase is both your prerogative and your folly to embrace; that's not the point. I pok

"usually"..."basically"..."probably"...that's a lot of handwaving. Your usecase is both your prerogative and your folly to embrace; that's not the point. I poke fun at the OP because his qualifier for "works fine" is an indeterminate definition of eventually establishing some semblance of compliant 1-wire communication with a counterfeit component without even so much as batting an eye to question the accuracy of the sensor measurement being read in, let alone: a) environmental constraints b) electrical constraints c) timing constraints d) system integration considerations e) counterfeit variance/unpredicability No, this is not even remotely asymptotic to the implications of software unit testing. This is physical hardware which manifests real variance "vetted" by some half-baked functional "test" that completely ignores every parametric spec without discrimination. Without questioning implementation merits, your software unit tests operate on hash-replicable code...at the silicon level, such a luxury doesn't exist.