3 ms·

This is the first and only article by this guy on that web site. He sells browser automation. I tried finding non-platitude insights but couldn't. His conclus

by fefe23 3y ago

This is the first and only article by this guy on that web site. He sells browser automation. I tried finding non-platitude insights but couldn't. His conclusion is: > By embracing a more holistic testing approach, teams can deliver better software faster. As with so much in life, the key is using the right tool for the job, not just the tool that is most convenient at the moment. When it comes to testing, smart and strategic beats brute force every time. Note how this statement conveys zero information and could be said about literally anything.

ildon 3y ago
Sounds a lot like chatgpt
- jasonjmcghee 3y ago
  I think it similarly lacks substance, but doesn't have the ChatGPT tone / cadence / vocab imo.
quickthrower2 3y ago
Sounds like someone selling a system to a non technical pointy hair
h0l0cube 3y ago
If you're looking for an article with substance and a similar bent (functional specifications driving decisions on test granularity), I'd try this one: https://rbcs-us.com/documents/Why-Most-Unit-Testing-is-Waste.pdf https://rbcs-us.com/documents/Why-Most-Unit-Testing-is-Waste...
- benterix 3y ago
  This one is much more substantial and the author has some excellent points like the futility of aiming at 100% coverage.
  - h0l0cube 3y ago
    My favorite hot take from that article is that if a functional test can't exercise a piece of code, delete it. That is, if the code can't be exercised in normal usage of your program, it serves no purpose. One retort might be that sometimes code defends against malicious actors who, say, have direct access to private endpoints etc., but if you're defending against such threats, either that requirement drives your functional spec (e.g. banking infrastructure) or maybe you're taking things a little too far.
    - fefe23 3y ago
      That does sound like an intriguing way to think about the issue. Thanks for pointing it out to me!

by fefe23 3y ago

ildon 3y ago

Sounds a lot like chatgpt

jasonjmcghee 3y ago
I think it similarly lacks substance, but doesn't have the ChatGPT tone / cadence / vocab imo.

quickthrower2 3y ago

Sounds like someone selling a system to a non technical pointy hair

h0l0cube 3y ago

If you're looking for an article with substance and a similar bent (functional specifications driving decisions on test granularity), I'd try this one: https://rbcs-us.com/documents/Why-Most-Unit-Testing-is-Waste.pdf https://rbcs-us.com/documents/Why-Most-Unit-Testing-is-Waste...

benterix 3y ago
This one is much more substantial and the author has some excellent points like the futility of aiming at 100% coverage.
- h0l0cube 3y ago
  My favorite hot take from that article is that if a functional test can't exercise a piece of code, delete it. That is, if the code can't be exercised in normal usage of your program, it serves no purpose. One retort might be that sometimes code defends against malicious actors who, say, have direct access to private endpoints etc., but if you're defending against such threats, either that requirement drives your functional spec (e.g. banking infrastructure) or maybe you're taking things a little too far.
  - fefe23 3y ago
    That does sound like an intriguing way to think about the issue. Thanks for pointing it out to me!