3 ms·
> this stuff about how unit tests aren't tests for units but rather tests that are units is nonsense. the term has been used to mean 'tests for units' for about
by dools 3y ago
> this stuff about how unit tests aren't tests for units but rather tests that are units is nonsense. the term has been used to mean 'tests for units' for about a century
Is that in the article? I've never heard this before. Unit tests are tests that test a "unit" as opposed to integration tests which test how "units" work together. Of course when it comes to code, what one might call a "unit" is more arbitrary than what one might call a "unit" in an electronics project, which is I think one of the points the author is making.
- kragen 3y agoyou are of course correct on all points, but the article links to his previous article https://boston.conman.org/2023/11/19.1 https://boston.conman.org/2023/11/19.1 which links to this dumb meme at https://linkedrecords.com/the-big-tdd-misunderstanding-8e22c2f1fc21 https://linkedrecords.com/the-big-tdd-misunderstanding-8e22c... originally saying > Originally, the term “unit” in “unit test” referred not to the system under test but to the test itself. This implies that the test can be executed as one unit and does not rely on other tests running upfront which is historically incoherent. the author has weakened their post to now say > Rumors have it that the term “unit” in “unit test” originally referred to test itself, not to a unit of the system under test. (...) which is still reckless disregard for historical accuracy but now at least it's deniable