4 ms·

A log statement isn't a unit test in the same way that apples aren't trees. A unit test is a discrete, runnable program that asserts some state about your progr

A log statement isn't a unit test in the same way that apples aren't trees. A unit test is a discrete, runnable program that asserts some state about your program to be true, whereas a log is just some subsystem of your overall program that prints some output with no pass/fail condition. You may have a unit test that makes assertions about logs though? I would definitely expect somebody that isn't a junior programmer to understand this.

Supermancho 3y ago
> A log statement isn't a unit test in the same way that apples aren't trees I don't think your explanation is compelling. > a log is just some subsystem of your overall program that prints some output with no pass/fail condition. The pass fail is interpreted. A unit test result is interpreted, be it with a big green/red or an exception or any other way you wish to express it. Running something manually and checking the logs in an environment, when there is a reported issue, is modus operandi of every developer today. Did A happen and B happen and what did C say before exit? A looks good (because it has an expected state), etc. > I would definitely expect somebody that isn't a junior programmer to understand this. I didn't say logs were a replacement for unit tests (that's a previous poster's strawman). Regardless, they are a form of testing, because we use them to observe state after execution. Manual testing is testing, manual testing and observation of logs, is testing.
- ludston 3y ago
  You explicitly said logging is a form of "unit test" which has a very specific meaning and a log is not it. Observing a log can obviously be part of an assertion in a test be it manual or whatever, but an assertion is not a unit test.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    > A unit test is a discrete, runnable program that asserts some state about your program to be true I would say "Observe the state of an execution stack". Tomato tomato. > which has a very specific meaning Unit testing is a methodology, not a specific thing. How you observe it, be it through a pass fail indicator or a "This looks right", is immaterial. Splitting hairs on the output methodology does not change the utility.

Supermancho 3y ago

> A log statement isn't a unit test in the same way that apples aren't trees I don't think your explanation is compelling. > a log is just some subsystem of your overall program that prints some output with no pass/fail condition. The pass fail is interpreted. A unit test result is interpreted, be it with a big green/red or an exception or any other way you wish to express it. Running something manually and checking the logs in an environment, when there is a reported issue, is modus operandi of every developer today. Did A happen and B happen and what did C say before exit? A looks good (because it has an expected state), etc. > I would definitely expect somebody that isn't a junior programmer to understand this. I didn't say logs were a replacement for unit tests (that's a previous poster's strawman). Regardless, they are a form of testing, because we use them to observe state after execution. Manual testing is testing, manual testing and observation of logs, is testing.

ludston 3y ago
You explicitly said logging is a form of "unit test" which has a very specific meaning and a log is not it. Observing a log can obviously be part of an assertion in a test be it manual or whatever, but an assertion is not a unit test.
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > A unit test is a discrete, runnable program that asserts some state about your program to be true I would say "Observe the state of an execution stack". Tomato tomato. > which has a very specific meaning Unit testing is a methodology, not a specific thing. How you observe it, be it through a pass fail indicator or a "This looks right", is immaterial. Splitting hairs on the output methodology does not change the utility.