4 ms·

That's not how logic works. The statement was very causal. > If you've got a slow test suite, that mean's you've got a bad test suite. Or you have a fantasti

• dalke 13y ago
  Is 90 seconds to test a function "slow"? What about 4.5 minutes to test three functions? If you say it's slow then either it's a bad test suite, and/or it includes integration tests. I believe that is the logic, yes? There is no lower unit to test, so therefore this must be a unit test. The linked-to page shows that testing all possibilities identifies flaws that normal manual test construction did not find. Therefore, it must be a better test suite than using manually selected test cases, with several examples of poorly tested implementations. (Note: writing an exact test against the equivalent libc results is easier to write than selecting test cases manually, and it's easier for someone else to verify that the code is testing all possibilities than to verify that a selected set of corner cases is complete.) Therefore, logic says that it is not a bad test suite. Since it contains unit tests and it is not a bad test suite, therefore it must not be slow. Therefore, 4.5 minutes to unit test these three functions is not "slow". Therefore, acceptable unit tests may take several minutes to run. That is what the logic says. Do you agree? If not, where is the flaw in my logic?
• ulisesrmzroche 13y ago
  How can you have a good test suite without integration tests? That's not a full test suite. That's a cop-out. A good test suite has two qualities - how comprehensive it is and how fast it takes to run. If either is lacking, then it is no longer a good test suite.