>> at that point what are you testing? > Memory. It doesn't make sense to test something you have no control over, if the OS fails to allocate memory there's n

>> at that point what are you testing? > Memory. It doesn't make sense to test something you have no control over, if the OS fails to allocate memory there's nothing you can change in your code to fix that. Likewise, if you're improperly instructing the OS to allocate memory (via some constructor or factory or whatever) there is no test you can write to test your own intentions that won't be subject to exactly the same level of incorrectness as the implementation code itself. If you've written "do the thing" writing a "test" that says "hey make sure I wrote 'do the thing'" is ridiculous. I've often found this to be a matter of semantics. Someone will say they're writing a "unit test" and load all the assertions and logic associated with the meaning of "unit test" into their brain and then try to apply it in a way that subtly invalidates those assertions when they start writing. To make things worse, there's a cultural disinclination toward "semantic arguments" so you end up arguing with people that have basically no chance of understanding why what they're doing doesn't provide the value it should