3 ms·
Yep, makes sense to me. Unit tests assume that a clean-room environment translates reasonably well to the end result; the more naturally complex or unruly a pro
by brundolf 6y ago
Yep, makes sense to me. Unit tests assume that a clean-room environment translates reasonably well to the end result; the more naturally complex or unruly a product or a target metric is, the more your testing process should lean towards integration/real-world testing.
- throwawayg5TS 6y agoIt looks like you are confusing testing and benchmarking. Those are different problems that require different skills and tools. Integration/end-to-end tests are terrible for performance benchmarks. They are designed to capture functional issues at the seams. They are usually heavy and not very diverse (because very fragile and/or expensive to maintain), usually focused on a few key critical functional paths, e.g. "can I put something in my shopping cart and pay". That's pretty much the opposite of real-world". The "real-world" is the distribution of what the end-user experiences. With proper tracing, one can identify the key real-world hotspots (including the data associated to it) and then focus on optimizing that.