3 ms·
Of course there is debate. The reason is that automated tests costs 2-3x as much time upfront. The assumption is then you will recoup that investment in the fu
by taligent 14y ago
Of course there is debate.
The reason is that automated tests costs 2-3x as much time upfront. The assumption is then you will recoup that investment in the future. The problem is that automated testing doesn't cover everything so you have to augment it with human testers. Which then begs the question are the human testers being effectively utilised.
And for those of that do develop have a think about all the time spent on buggy web UI testing, screenshot comparison testing, tests being flakey due to software choices etc.
- markmm 14y agoAgreed, I would focus on hiring shit hot testers and automating end to end testing if possible. Unit testing is useful for a small number of examples like a method that does complicated calculations,but I see TDD zealots writing them to test a method that simply forwards data to another layer, all designed around dependency injection.
- rwallace 14y agoAutomated _unit_ tests cost two or three times as much time, sure. That doesn't mean don't use automated tests, it means don't use unit tests. Use integration tests instead. Not only do they provide much better coverage (you're testing all the code from top to bottom, each module in the context in which it is actually used), but they are also far cheaper.