36 ms·
> is that they are considered second-class pieces of software and only get the attention of QA engineers or developers who are not applying the same level of ef
by munificent 5y ago
> is that they are considered second-class pieces of software and only get the attention of QA engineers or developers who are not applying the same level of effort as their runtime code.
Another way to say this is that efficient e2e tests require significant continuous investment in top-tier engineer time. The question then is how much engineering time is worth being spent in that way.
It may be that, yes, you can have fast e2e suites, but doing so is too expensive to justify the cost.
- dlisboa 5y agoYou have to compare that against what was done instead. Their solution was to employ a few engineers to create a new contract-based test framework, which will also have to be maintained. I believe that counts as "significant" investment too, but the calculus has to be whether that is less costly than improving their E2E tests.
- marcosdumay 5y ago> The question then is how much engineering time is worth being spent in that way. Well, since it brings more value than testing in a lower level, I would say, more than any other kind of test (except, maybe, for monitoring). Another good question is, is there any kind of tests that gives you good results without investing good-engineers time? If you find any, I'd ask you to share (but I would understand if you consider the information a market differentiator and won't).
- Daishiman 5y agoI have generally found that integration tests with well-mocked external dependencies achieve 80% of the things E2E tests do with a quarter of the effort.