Timeline for Testing an assertion across all test cases
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 13, 2023 at 14:25 | comment | added | Laiv | #1 is quite biased and lacks perspective. You are forcing everyone to read every single test to know "what should not happen given X when Y then Z". However, tests suits intendedly focused on test cases asserting those "unwanted side effects" makes a good deal of improvement. Tests are not mere automatisms. They are documentation too. Plus, where do you draw the line between "wanted" and "unwanted"? According to your rationale, you should assert the state of the whole application after the test execution. That's fairly too much and beyond any test responsibility. | |
| Jan 13, 2023 at 12:21 | answer | added | Ewan | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 13, 2023 at 10:15 | history | edited | krezno | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 4 characters in body |
| Jan 13, 2023 at 10:09 | answer | added | Kilian Foth | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 13, 2023 at 10:05 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | How likely is it that a reviewer will miss such a mistake? How likely is it that for a new testcase, the extra check is skipped/forgotten? | |
| Jan 13, 2023 at 9:58 | history | edited | krezno | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 14 characters in body |
| Jan 13, 2023 at 9:52 | history | asked | krezno | CC BY-SA 4.0 |