Timeline for Rethinking testing strategy
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2013 at 18:29 | comment | added | Stephen Byrne | Cool beans - it's really good that you're questioning the value of these things, because only then can you really step back and come to an honest answer :) | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 18:28 | history | edited | Stephen Byrne | CC BY-SA 3.0 | typos fixed |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 17:19 | comment | added | Roman Susi | Thanks! I have corrected myself regarding spotting the source of problem. | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 17:10 | comment | added | Roman Susi | 3) I mean, when integration test fails, it is usually not because of the code under test but some regression in the system. The system is much much larger in volume than the views and whatnot we write (the system is where most mishaps happen). And our unittests unfortunately of no help to pinpoint problems. Integration tests work much better. In one blow they catch errors in the usual flow of usage. (low-level, "leaf" functions still have unit tests - I find it very useful to write unit tests for those before/during/right after development) | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 17:03 | comment | added | Roman Susi | 1) I am not going to drop writing unit tests. My point is, unit tests specifically for views is wasting time because complex subsystems view ties together need to be mocked. Unit test which verifies something is actually called has little value, because one need to change the view to achieve the result! Unit test is just writing code in other words in that case. | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 16:39 | history | answered | Stephen Byrne | CC BY-SA 3.0 |