2 ms·
I'll give this one an upvote just for the discussion of an article written by someone that has a serious bug up their butt about testing (if you will allow the
by mikestew 6y ago
I'll give this one an upvote just for the discussion of an article written by someone that has a serious bug up their butt about testing (if you will allow the pun). As another commenter points out, it's Poe's law in action, though I'm leaning toward "they're serious, aren't they?"
My only rebuttal is that if things can be tested manually, as is the preference of the author, then you're either:
1. Building a toy app, or at least one that doesn't do more than a handful of things
2. Are not testing as thoroughly as one might think
3. Are going to soon be overwhelmed by the testing workload
4. Are going to start missing bugs, especially regressions
5. More than likely all of the above, with the possible exception of #1
- jsmith45 6y agoExcept that most major software you use has only limited automated tests that are nowhere near comprehensive. For example large parts of the Linux kernel are only covered by manual testing and some automated bug finding tools, not traditional unit or even integrations tests. The answer in practice for most software is that the testing simply is not thorough, bugs are missed, and regressions slip in (and get fixed once noticed). And that is all not necessarily a major problem. Of course, having some level of automated testing, even if somewhat cursory is highly advisable. At the very least least for any smaller components that are easy to test. But a comprehensive test suite for each component is not at all a hard requirement of software development.
- Tainnor 6y agothat will certainly depend on your definition of "major problem". Most software is certainly full of plenty of bugs, maybe it's still worth having it regardless, but I wouldn't call it not a problem, see also: https://danluu.com/everything-is-broken/ https://danluu.com/everything-is-broken/