4 ms·
This sounds like a good theory but the practice of it is really hard. Pretty quickly you end up with tests that "say" one thing but have nuanced different behav
by invalidname 4y ago
This sounds like a good theory but the practice of it is really hard. Pretty quickly you end up with tests that "say" one thing but have nuanced different behavior in the underlying implementation.
Then try to debug a "document"...
I like the idea. But having tried it at scale, it becomes a mess. Code I can understand. I can read English comments. I can't debug English.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- brabel 4y agoWe have it at scale, and no, it doesn't become a mess. We use Spock, which make "comments" a very expected thing, which helps us not let tests without comments pass a code review. Just use a tool that helps you and stop writing stupid tests whose impl code looks worse than the code being tested.
- urthor 4y agohttps://www.scalatest.org/at_a_glance/WordSpec https://www.scalatest.org/at_a_glance/WordSpec Seems pretty straightforward.
- invalidname 4y agoThen why all the comments? I know what typical code does. This code looks simple but that's misleading when you're trying to understand a failure. You want consistency and clarity. You want readablity like code is readable not like a book is readable.