6 ms·
Sure, I'm not saying the proposed automated test is bad. I think it might be sensible to add it. As I said, I'm 100% for automated tests (I should be, as the co
by mherrmann 13y ago
Sure, I'm not saying the proposed automated test is bad. I think it might be sensible to add it. As I said, I'm 100% for automated tests (I should be, as the co-founder of a startup specializing in test automation tools). But ascribing magical capabilities to catch all future bugs to automated tests / "check lists" is IMHO detrimental to the cause because it leads to too high expectations.
- scott_w 13y agoThey don't, and the article doesn't imply this. A lot of stuff that gets on checklists is because not knowing about it killed someone. Other documented procedures came from time in the simulator - somewhat anagolous to manual user testing. To be honest, the only people I know ascribing "magical capabilities" to unit testing are those disparaging it. The rest of us think it's great, and makes life a lot easier, but we've all been bitten by that unexpected bug when you see it working in the real world.
- jimktrains2 13y agoExactly. I've always hated the "You can't test what you don't know so it's worthless." Well sorry, I can test what I do know and make sure that I don't break that. As new errors come upon, you add it to your tests (akin to checklists, essentially), and make sure you don't break that use case again.