2 ms·
> “We don’t have time to [write automated] test[s],” stated the principal engineer… This was in response to my candid observation that test coverage was low, ex
by jt2190 2y ago
> “We don’t have time to [write automated] test[s],” stated the principal engineer… This was in response to my candid observation that test coverage was low, existing tests didn’t always run locally for mysterious reasons, integration tests were non-existent, and pull requests could merge without passing the few tests that did exist.
Given the state of the existing automated tests, perhaps the Principal Engineer is correct… Why would the new automated tests be any better?
- heavymetalpoizn 2y ago[dead]
- default-kramer 2y agoYeah, automated tests are great when they are good. But when they are bad, they can be worse than no tests at all. Multiple times in my career I've taken ownership of a codebase written by someone else. Some of the most pleasant ones had very little test coverage, but the code quality was high enough to make the lack of tests not really matter. On the other hand, some code is so bad covering it with tests adds nothing of value; it's just one more thing I have to analyze and decide what to do with. I agree with most of the author's points in general, but I think that most programmers who are capable of writing good tests are also capable of recognizing situations when it's not worth the trouble.