2 ms·
Worth it for a few companies, but not for the majority. Most tests are also useless. Going for 100% test coverage is insanity. I think there is a lot of people
by peakaboo 5y ago
Worth it for a few companies, but not for the majority. Most tests are also useless. Going for 100% test coverage is insanity. I think there is a lot of people in tech with autistic personalities who really hate when things are not perfect.
- runawaybottle 5y agoCouple that with adhd meds which induces a state of compulsiveness where one obsesses and marvels delusionally at their code writing ability.
- kossTKR 5y agoTrue, i can also get OCD'ey vibes, myself included, i think it comes with mindset one fosters when looking at a screen for long. Same thing can also happen when doing Music or Digital Art, you can fell into a perfectionism loop, where you spend an exponential amount of time on smaller and smaller tasks, that no one will ever care about. For lots of projects writing some quick end-to-end or story based tests is sufficient, maybe with some randomisation thrown in. I honestly think the current framework hell we're in has pushed so many hyper-complex best practices that we just waste way too much time on perfecting process over actually coding - tests being one of the paradigms that has gone overboard.
- phone8675309 5y agoA widely used, large framework having really good code coverage is important, especially if not everyone uses all of the framework.