4 ms·

...and I'm not confident at all that Claude can do anything at that level.

by Yoric 1y ago

johnfn 1y ago
How does that reconcile with the article, which states: > Did Claude catch all the edge cases? Yes, and I'm not exaggerating. Claude never missed a relevant E2E test. But it tends to run more tests than needed, which is fine - better safe than sorry. If you have some particular issue with the author's methodology, you should state that.
- cerved 1y ago
  Well since it never broke for some rando on the internet, surely that means it will always work for everyone
  - johnfn 1y ago
    If you have some particular issue with the article, you should state that. Otherwise, the most charitable interpretation of your position I can come up with is "the article is wrong for some reason I refuse to specify", which doesn't lead to a productive dialogue.
    - ambicapter 1y ago
      I think you're the one being uncharitable here. The meaning of what he's saying is very clear. You can't say this probabilistic method (using LLMs to decide your e2e test plan) works if you only have a single example of it working.
      - johnfn 1y ago
        It's really not clear. Using probabilistic methods to determine your e2e test plan is already best practice at large tech shops, and to be quite honest the heuristics that they used to use were pretty poor and arbitrary.
    - cerved 1y ago
      The author said they used Claude to decide which E2E tests to run and "Claude never missed a relevant E2E test." How many times did they conduct this experiment? Over how long time? How did they determine which tests were relevant and that Claude didn't miss them? Did they try it on more than one project? My point was that none of this tells me this will work in general
- bgwalter 1y ago
  If the author can keep the whole function code_change -> relevant E2E_TESTS in his head, it seems to be a trivial application. We don't know the methodology, since the author does not state how he verified that function or how he would verify the function for a large code base.
- troupo 1y ago
  Easy. The article asks us to believe. There's a handy list to check against the article here: https://dmitriid.com/everything-around-llms-is-still-magical-and-wishful-thinking https://dmitriid.com/everything-around-llms-is-still-magical... starting at "For every description of how LLMs work or don't work we know only some, but not all of the following"
  - johnfn 1y ago
    It seems to me like we have the answers to all those questions. - Do we know which projects people work on? It's pretty easy to discover that OP works on https://livox.com.br/en/ https://livox.com.br/en/, a tool that uses AI to let people with disabilities speak. That sounds like a reasonable project to me. - Do we know which codebases (greenfield, mature, proprietary etc.) people work on The e2e tests took 2 hours to run and the website quotes ~40M words. That is not greenfield. - Do we know the level of expertise the people have? It seems like they work on nontrivial production apps. - How much additional work did they have reviewing, fixing, deploying, finishing etc.? The article says very little.
    - troupo 1y ago
      > The article says very little. And that's the crux, isn't it. Because that checklist really is just the tip of the iceberg. Some people have completely opposite experiences: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45152139 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45152139 Others question the validity of the approach entirely: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45152668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45152668 Oh, don't get me wrong: I like the idea. I would trust LLMs with this idea about as far as I could throw them.

...and I'm not confident at all that Claude can do anything at that level.

by Yoric 1y ago

...and I'm not confident at all that Claude can do anything at that level.

How does that reconcile with the article, which states: > Did Claude catch all the edge cases? Yes, and I'm not exaggerating. Claude never missed a relevant E2E test. But it tends to run more tests than needed, which is fine - better safe than sorry. If you have some particular issue with the author's methodology, you should state that.

cerved 1y ago
Well since it never broke for some rando on the internet, surely that means it will always work for everyone
- johnfn 1y ago
  If you have some particular issue with the article, you should state that. Otherwise, the most charitable interpretation of your position I can come up with is "the article is wrong for some reason I refuse to specify", which doesn't lead to a productive dialogue.
  - ambicapter 1y ago
    I think you're the one being uncharitable here. The meaning of what he's saying is very clear. You can't say this probabilistic method (using LLMs to decide your e2e test plan) works if you only have a single example of it working.
    - johnfn 1y ago
      It's really not clear. Using probabilistic methods to determine your e2e test plan is already best practice at large tech shops, and to be quite honest the heuristics that they used to use were pretty poor and arbitrary.
  - cerved 1y ago
    The author said they used Claude to decide which E2E tests to run and "Claude never missed a relevant E2E test." How many times did they conduct this experiment? Over how long time? How did they determine which tests were relevant and that Claude didn't miss them? Did they try it on more than one project? My point was that none of this tells me this will work in general
bgwalter 1y ago
If the author can keep the whole function code_change -> relevant E2E_TESTS in his head, it seems to be a trivial application. We don't know the methodology, since the author does not state how he verified that function or how he would verify the function for a large code base.
troupo 1y ago
Easy. The article asks us to believe. There's a handy list to check against the article here: https://dmitriid.com/everything-around-llms-is-still-magical-and-wishful-thinking https://dmitriid.com/everything-around-llms-is-still-magical... starting at "For every description of how LLMs work or don't work we know only some, but not all of the following"
- johnfn 1y ago
  It seems to me like we have the answers to all those questions. - Do we know which projects people work on? It's pretty easy to discover that OP works on https://livox.com.br/en/ https://livox.com.br/en/, a tool that uses AI to let people with disabilities speak. That sounds like a reasonable project to me. - Do we know which codebases (greenfield, mature, proprietary etc.) people work on The e2e tests took 2 hours to run and the website quotes ~40M words. That is not greenfield. - Do we know the level of expertise the people have? It seems like they work on nontrivial production apps. - How much additional work did they have reviewing, fixing, deploying, finishing etc.? The article says very little.
  - troupo 1y ago
    > The article says very little. And that's the crux, isn't it. Because that checklist really is just the tip of the iceberg. Some people have completely opposite experiences: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45152139 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45152139 Others question the validity of the approach entirely: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45152668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45152668 Oh, don't get me wrong: I like the idea. I would trust LLMs with this idea about as far as I could throw them.