4 ms·

and test the new behavior many times Manually? You can save a lot of time if automate that.

• abstractbill 17y ago
  I do have non-unit tests (but only for things that have actually failed more than once). Specifically, I have a bunch of chat bots that periodically log in to the production chat servers, talk to each other, ban each other, etc, etc, and make sure they get the responses they expect. Yes, new functionality I test manually. I believe the time taken to write tests for things that have never failed is wasted.
  • axod 17y ago
    Agreed. Given the choice of logging or unit testing, logging is probably 100x as important in finding and fixing bugs.
  • Afton 17y ago
    I believe the time taken to write tests for things that have never failed is wasted. Yes yes yes. I've seen a lot of tests that, if they failed, would have meant that a thousand other tests would have also failed, and that test would have been simply more noise.
    • LargeWu 17y ago
      Then you're either a)not testing correctly or b)writing code with too many dependencies, or c)both. If a thousand tests break from a single code change, this should be a code smell that says your architecture needs work. This is where testing gets its real value. Finding bugs is just a side effect of testing. The real value is that testing helps you design good code.
      • run4yourlives 17y ago
        I think he means the reverse though. It's not that a single line of code causes thousands of failures, it's that you'll never get that particular test to fail unless pretty much everything else is failing to, ergo it's a useless test. I don't necessarily disagree with your point, just clarifying.