3 ms·
This is more of "LLM code review" than any kind of testing, and calling it "testing" is just badly misleading.
by dragonwriter 2y ago
This is more of "LLM code review" than any kind of testing, and calling it "testing" is just badly misleading.
- anself 2y agoAgree, it's not testing. The problem is here: "In a typical testing workflow, you write some basic tests to check the core functionality. When a bug inevitably shows up—usually after deployment—you go back and add more tests to cover it. This process is reactive, time-consuming, and frankly, a bit tedious." This is exactly the problem that TDD solves. One of the most compelling reasons for test-first is because "Running the code in your head" does not actually work well in practice, leading to the above-cited issues. This is just another variant of "Running the code in your head" except an LLM is doing it. Strong TDD practices (don't write any code without a test to support it) will close those gaps. It may feel tedious at first but the safety it creates will leave you never wanting to go back. Where this could be safe and useful: Find gaps in the test-set. Places where the code was never written because there wasn't a test to drive it out. This is one of the hardest parts of TDD, and where LLMs could really help.
- IshKebab 2y agoYeah this sounds like a good way to detect out of date comments. I would have focused on that.
- spiddy 2y agothis. Let’s not confuse meanings. There are multiple ways to improve quality of code. Testing is one, code review is another. this belongs to the latter