4 ms·

Such a massive undertaking would be almost impossible without AI agents, so yeah, they help me. But with around 5000 tests, they are actually helping to improve

• throawayonthe 7mo ago
  are all the tests hand written or are some agent-contributed? curious
  • mountainriver 7mo ago
    What’s the difference if you review the code getting merged?
    • i_cannot_hack 7mo ago
      Reviewing the correctness of code is a lot harder than writing correct code, in my experience. Especially when the code given looks correct on an initial glance, and leads you into faulty assumptions you would not have made otherwise. I'm not claiming AI-written and human-reviewed code is necessarily bad, just that the claim that reviewing code is equivalent to writing it yourself does not match my experience at all.
      • tempest_ 7mo ago
        Plus if you look at the commit cadence there is a lot of commits like 5-10 minutes a part in places that add new functionality (which I realize doesn't mean they were "written" in that time) I find people do argue a lot about "if it is reviewed it is the same" which might be easy when you start but I think the allure of just glancing going "it makes sense" and hammering on is super high and hard to resist. We are still early into the use of these tools so perhaps best practices will need to be adjusted with these tools in mind. At the moment it seems to be a bit of a crap shoot to me.
      • mountainriver 7mo ago
        eh with plenty of tests that I can easily read and are well documented I haven't actually ever found this to be a problem in practice
    • throawayonthe 7mo ago
      i mean idk that's sorta like asking what's the difference of having tests if you review the code getting merged
    • IshKebab 7mo ago
      The difference is we can't tell if you reviewed the code.
      • layer8 7mo ago
        To be fair, we also couldn’t tell for sure if they hand-wrote the code.
        • IshKebab 7mo ago
          If they hand wrote the code we know they at least looked at it once.
          • layer8 7mo ago
            Since we can’t know whether they really hand-wrote the code, we also wouldn’t know whether they looked at it.
            • IshKebab 7mo ago
              Err yeah that's the point.
              • layer8 7mo ago
                You wrote: “If they hand wrote the code we know they at least looked at it once.” But that’s not true, because even if they did indeed hand-write the code, we as third parties wouldn’t have any reliable proof of that, and therefore still couldn’t draw the conclusion that they looked at the code. Them claiming to have hand-written the code isn’t any better than them claiming to have thoroughly reviewed the code. We can’t know in either case.
                • IshKebab 7mo ago
                  > Them claiming to have hand-written the code isn’t any better than them claiming to have thoroughly reviewed the code. We can’t know in either case. It is better, because most people aren't out-right liars. If he said "I hand-wrote the code", sure it doesn't prove it, but I would believe him. When he says "I thoroughly reviewed the code"... yeah maybe. That's the sort of thing people do lie about (even to themselves).
    • bowsamic 7mo ago
      Code review basically never actually means thinking through all the code again as if you wrote it
• tock 7mo ago
  Did you actually review 313,397 LOC written by claude? And you wrote the tests? That's honestly very impressive if yes.