> I'm confused by this line of reasoning. That's because you haven't read the discussion. Why would you expect anything else? Your comment straight up reiterat

> I'm confused by this line of reasoning. That's because you haven't read the discussion. Why would you expect anything else? Your comment straight up reiterates what was already said. For example, "The value proposition of testing is that it documents the user interface in a way that is independent of implementation, allowing you to continue to iterate on the implementation while having assurances that, no matter what you do under the hood, the user experience does not deviate from what is documented." Explicitly testing third-party code introduces testing of implementation details. It is impossible to explicitly test another codebase without knowing of its existence. But it is not an area of concern for a first-party application to worry about. The third-party should already have those tests in the third-party codebase.