The article highlights this claim: "Now, you change a little thing in your code base, and the only thing the testing suite tells you is that you will be busy t

The article highlights this claim: "Now, you change a little thing in your code base, and the only thing the testing suite tells you is that you will be busy the rest of the day rewriting false positive test cases." Whenever this is the case, it would seem at least one of the following is true: 1) There are many ways the 'little change' could break the system. 2) Many of the existing tests are testing for accidental properties which are not relevant to the correct functioning of the system. If only the second proposition describes the situation, then, in my experience, it is usually a consequence of tests written to help get the implementation correct being retained in the test suite. That is not necessarily a bad thing: with slight modification, they might save time in writing tests that are useful in getting the new implementation correct. I should make it clear that I don't think this observation invalidates any of the points the author is making; in fact, I think it supports them.