8 ms·

Wow I hate this dogmatism. It is indeed better to use one instead of the other. Let’s stop pretending all are equally good and we need every type of test. Some

Wow I hate this dogmatism. It is indeed better to use one instead of the other. Let’s stop pretending all are equally good and we need every type of test. Sometimes you just don’t need unit tests and it’s okay to admit it and work accordingly.

RHSeeger 1y ago
And sometimes you only need screws, instead of nails; or vice versa. But that doesn't invalidate the tool; it just means your use case doesn't need it.
- imiric 1y ago
  You can't build a house without nails and screws, though. Sure, if you're only writing a small script, you might not need tests at all. But as soon as that program evolves into a system that interacts with other systems, you need to test each component in isolation, as well as how it interacts with other systems. So this idea that unit tests are not useful is coming from a place of laziness. Some developers see it as a chore that slows them down, instead of seeing it as insurance that makes their life easier in the long run, while also ensuring the system works as intended at all layers.
imiric 1y ago
You claim it's dogmatism, yet do the same thing in reverse. (: Unit and integration tests test different layers of the system, and one isn't inherently better or more useful than the other. They complement each other to cover behavior that is impossible to test otherwise. You can't test low-level functionality in integration tests, just as you can't test high-level functionality in unit tests. There's nothing dogmatic about that statement. If you disagree with it, that's your prerogative, but it's also my opinion that it is a mistake. It is a harmful mentality that makes code bases risky to change, and regressions more likely. So feel free to adopt it in your personal projects if you wish, but don't be surprised if you get push back on it when working in a team. Unless your teammates think the same, in which case, good luck to you all.
- tsimionescu 1y ago
  The problem with this line of argument is that, in general, high level behavior (covered by integratuon tests) is dependent on low level behavior. So if your code is ascertained to work at the high level, you also know that it must be working at the lower level too. So, integration tests also tell you if your component works at a low level, not just a high level. The converse is not true, however. It's perfectly possible for individual components to "work" well, but to not do the right thing from a high level perspective. Say, one component provides a good fast quicksort function, but the other component requires a stable sort to work properly - each is OK in isolation, but you need an integration test to figure out the mistake. Unit tests are typically good scaffolding. They allow you to test bits of your infrastructure as you're building it but before it's ready for integration into the larger project. But they give you realtively little assurance at the project level, and are not worth it unless you're pretty sure you're building the right thing in the first place.
  - imiric 1y ago
    > So if your code is ascertained to work at the high level, you also know that it must be working at the lower level too. No, that is not guaranteed. Integration and E2E tests can only cover certain code paths, because they depend on the input and output from other systems (frontend, databases, etc.). This I/O might be crafted in ways that never trigger a failure scenario or expose a bug within the lower-level components. This doesn't mean that the issue doesn't exist—it just means that you're not seeing it. Furthermore, the fact that, by their nature, integration and E2E tests are often more expensive to setup and run, there will be fewer of them, which means they will not have full coverage of the underlying components. Another issue is that often these tests, particularly E2E and acceptance tests, are written only with a happy path in mind, and ignore the myriad of input that might trigger a failure in the real world. Another problem with your argument is that it ignores that tests have different audiences. E2E and acceptance tests are written for the end user; integration tests are written for system integrators and operators; and unit tests are written for users of the API, which includes the author and other programmers. If you disregard one set of tests, you are disregarding that audience. To a programmer and maintainer of the software, E2E and acceptance tests have little value. They might not use the software at all. What they do care about is that the function, method, object, module, or package, does what says on the tin; that it returns the correct output when given a specific input; that it's performant, efficient, well documented, and so on. These users matter because they are the ones who will maintain the software in the long run. So thinking that unit tests are useless because they're a chore to maintain is a very shortsighted mentality. Instead, it's more beneficial to see them as guardrails that make your future work easier, by giving you the confidence that you're not inadvertently breaking an API contract whenever you make a change, even when all higher-level tests remain green across the board.
CuriouslyC 1y ago
If you don't write unit tests, how do you know something works? Just manual QA? How long does that take you relative to unit tests? How do you know if something broke due to an indirect change? Just more manual QA? Do you really think this is saving you time?
- tsimionescu 1y ago
  You can write many other other kinds of automated tests. Unit tests are rarely worth it, since they only look at the code in isolation, and often miss the forest for the trees if they're the only kind of test you have. But then, if you have other higher level tests that test your components are working well together, they're already implicitly covering that each component individually works well too - so your unit tests for that component are just duplicating the work the integration tests are already doing.
  - skydhash 1y ago
    Sometimes you really need to ensure that something is a tree. And you do not need the whole forest around for that. Sure you can’t have an adventure with only a tree. But if you need a tree, you need to make sure someone don’t bring a concrete tree sculpture.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- troupo 1y ago
  > If you don't write unit tests, how do you know something works? Integration tests. Unlike unit tests they actually test if something works.
  - yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
    This is utter nonsense.
    - troupo 1y ago

RHSeeger 1y ago

And sometimes you only need screws, instead of nails; or vice versa. But that doesn't invalidate the tool; it just means your use case doesn't need it.

imiric 1y ago
You can't build a house without nails and screws, though. Sure, if you're only writing a small script, you might not need tests at all. But as soon as that program evolves into a system that interacts with other systems, you need to test each component in isolation, as well as how it interacts with other systems. So this idea that unit tests are not useful is coming from a place of laziness. Some developers see it as a chore that slows them down, instead of seeing it as insurance that makes their life easier in the long run, while also ensuring the system works as intended at all layers.

imiric 1y ago

You claim it's dogmatism, yet do the same thing in reverse. (: Unit and integration tests test different layers of the system, and one isn't inherently better or more useful than the other. They complement each other to cover behavior that is impossible to test otherwise. You can't test low-level functionality in integration tests, just as you can't test high-level functionality in unit tests. There's nothing dogmatic about that statement. If you disagree with it, that's your prerogative, but it's also my opinion that it is a mistake. It is a harmful mentality that makes code bases risky to change, and regressions more likely. So feel free to adopt it in your personal projects if you wish, but don't be surprised if you get push back on it when working in a team. Unless your teammates think the same, in which case, good luck to you all.

tsimionescu 1y ago
The problem with this line of argument is that, in general, high level behavior (covered by integratuon tests) is dependent on low level behavior. So if your code is ascertained to work at the high level, you also know that it must be working at the lower level too. So, integration tests also tell you if your component works at a low level, not just a high level. The converse is not true, however. It's perfectly possible for individual components to "work" well, but to not do the right thing from a high level perspective. Say, one component provides a good fast quicksort function, but the other component requires a stable sort to work properly - each is OK in isolation, but you need an integration test to figure out the mistake. Unit tests are typically good scaffolding. They allow you to test bits of your infrastructure as you're building it but before it's ready for integration into the larger project. But they give you realtively little assurance at the project level, and are not worth it unless you're pretty sure you're building the right thing in the first place.
- imiric 1y ago
  > So if your code is ascertained to work at the high level, you also know that it must be working at the lower level too. No, that is not guaranteed. Integration and E2E tests can only cover certain code paths, because they depend on the input and output from other systems (frontend, databases, etc.). This I/O might be crafted in ways that never trigger a failure scenario or expose a bug within the lower-level components. This doesn't mean that the issue doesn't exist—it just means that you're not seeing it. Furthermore, the fact that, by their nature, integration and E2E tests are often more expensive to setup and run, there will be fewer of them, which means they will not have full coverage of the underlying components. Another issue is that often these tests, particularly E2E and acceptance tests, are written only with a happy path in mind, and ignore the myriad of input that might trigger a failure in the real world. Another problem with your argument is that it ignores that tests have different audiences. E2E and acceptance tests are written for the end user; integration tests are written for system integrators and operators; and unit tests are written for users of the API, which includes the author and other programmers. If you disregard one set of tests, you are disregarding that audience. To a programmer and maintainer of the software, E2E and acceptance tests have little value. They might not use the software at all. What they do care about is that the function, method, object, module, or package, does what says on the tin; that it returns the correct output when given a specific input; that it's performant, efficient, well documented, and so on. These users matter because they are the ones who will maintain the software in the long run. So thinking that unit tests are useless because they're a chore to maintain is a very shortsighted mentality. Instead, it's more beneficial to see them as guardrails that make your future work easier, by giving you the confidence that you're not inadvertently breaking an API contract whenever you make a change, even when all higher-level tests remain green across the board.

CuriouslyC 1y ago

If you don't write unit tests, how do you know something works? Just manual QA? How long does that take you relative to unit tests? How do you know if something broke due to an indirect change? Just more manual QA? Do you really think this is saving you time?

tsimionescu 1y ago
You can write many other other kinds of automated tests. Unit tests are rarely worth it, since they only look at the code in isolation, and often miss the forest for the trees if they're the only kind of test you have. But then, if you have other higher level tests that test your components are working well together, they're already implicitly covering that each component individually works well too - so your unit tests for that component are just duplicating the work the integration tests are already doing.
- skydhash 1y ago
  Sometimes you really need to ensure that something is a tree. And you do not need the whole forest around for that. Sure you can’t have an adventure with only a tree. But if you need a tree, you need to make sure someone don’t bring a concrete tree sculpture.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
troupo 1y ago
> If you don't write unit tests, how do you know something works? Integration tests. Unlike unit tests they actually test if something works.
- yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
  This is utter nonsense.
  - troupo 1y ago