Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • This argument only applies from a position where all necessary tests have already been written. It does not account for a scenario whereby a developer discovers that a test that should've been written long ago was never added to the test suite. While not wrong, per se, it is idealistic as a baseline for judging whether a test should be written today or not. Commented Jul 23, 2024 at 7:14
  • @Flater I explicitly covered that scenario Commented Jul 23, 2024 at 7:51
  • It is possible for OP's current task to be listed as a bugfix. The distinction between a bugfix and a change (i.e. whether the current behavior was once intended (change) or not (bugfix)) has no bearing on whether it should be backed by a test. Bugfixes also tend to need new tests, as the existence of the bug indicates that the test suite failed to cover this gap in the first place (else it wouldn't have been released with the bug). You've already made the mistake (bug) once, so refusing to write a test effectively opens you up to regressions on a mistake you've already made before. Commented Jul 23, 2024 at 23:06