3 ms·

I really like this list, and it's a great idea to explain testing this way. Perhaps there is also a level -1, when the tests actually make things worse. I see

I really like this list, and it's a great idea to explain testing this way. Perhaps there is also a level -1, when the tests actually make things worse. I see this when tests are extremely brittle, flaky, don't test the most complex or valuable bits of code, are very slow to run, or unmaintained with a list of "tests we know fail but haven't fixed".

Lutger 3y ago
There might even be a whole ladder going further down. You, something about the value of everything and the cost of nothing. I've seen tests with bugs in them, hiding bugs in the code and giving a false sense of robustness. because, you know, code coverage is 100% so we cannot have any bugs, right? I had to work with tests that test many trivial things, tightly coupled with implementation details. Those would discourage small refactorings, because it took a lot of time to understand and fix the failed tests as changes in details of implementation would lead to failures in unittests. It also slowed down the pace of development for no good reason. Unless a test has a value that exceeds the cost, it is a net negative.