Timeline for Should you test configuration?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2024 at 21:59 | history | edited | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 158 characters in body |
| Sep 23, 2024 at 10:08 | comment | added | candied_orange | @Flater better now? | |
| Sep 23, 2024 at 10:08 | history | edited | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 172 characters in body |
| Sep 23, 2024 at 9:49 | history | edited | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 121 characters in body |
| Sep 23, 2024 at 2:41 | comment | added | Sergey Zolotarev | I'm all for code reviews, but I don't think it's a form of testing. When we say "tests", we mean "automated tests" (ones that could be automatically run in a CI server on each push, for example) | |
| Sep 22, 2024 at 23:49 | comment | added | Flater | There is an underlying assertion here that the sole purpose of an automated test is providing an easy to read example. "The power of an automated test comes from the fact that the test can be easier to read than the code it's testing." The phrasing suggests that it is the reason to have an automated test. I disagree with this notion - or at least, I think it's an incomplete picture. Readable examples are one benefit of having tests, but a similar (if not greater) benefit is the ability to repeatedly check for regressions and flag behavioral changes (e.g. due to refactoring). | |
| Sep 22, 2024 at 22:57 | history | edited | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 16 characters in body |
| Sep 22, 2024 at 15:22 | history | edited | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 1 character in body |
| Sep 22, 2024 at 14:18 | history | edited | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 307 characters in body |
| Sep 22, 2024 at 10:55 | history | edited | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 3 characters in body |
| Sep 22, 2024 at 10:50 | comment | added | candied_orange | @SergeyZolotarev It's not a new one. They're called code reviews. There is a very dangerous attitude that demands bad automated tests that cripple the code base and actually make it harder to change. Once created without any clear reason for them to exist they are very hard to get rid of. Do not create them casually. Make clear why they exist and when they should be deleted. I deeply believe in testing. I just insist it be done well. Done poorly, it makes a mess. | |
| Sep 22, 2024 at 6:10 | comment | added | Sergey Zolotarev | Thank you. "Reading code is a form of testing." That's a new one. We are one step ahead of that: "Pushing dubious code and see if users complain is a form of testing." | |
| Sep 21, 2024 at 16:52 | history | edited | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 80 characters in body |
| Sep 21, 2024 at 16:39 | history | edited | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 251 characters in body |
| Sep 21, 2024 at 16:29 | history | edited | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 391 characters in body |
| Sep 21, 2024 at 16:20 | history | edited | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 391 characters in body |
| Sep 21, 2024 at 16:13 | history | answered | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 |