4 ms·
Agreed. I think Jay touches on this when talking about how you don't need to aim for 100% unit test coverage. It's also what I mean by testing algorithmic code
by henrik_w 12y ago
Agreed. I think Jay touches on this when talking about how you don't need to aim for 100% unit test coverage.
It's also what I mean by testing algorithmic code (where the pay off from the effort is large), versus testing coordinator code, where you are better off not unit testing it (because it is not complicated).
- rane 12y agoWhat's coordinator code like?
- henrik_w 12y agoCode that glues together and orchestrate interactions between other code units etc. It's hard to test because of all the dependencies, but the actions it performs are not very complicated, so not worth the effort of unit testing. For more, see: http://blog.stevensanderson.com/2009/11/04/selective-unit-testing-costs-and-benefits/ http://blog.stevensanderson.com/2009/11/04/selective-unit-te...