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
  • Basically what I'm trying to enforce is TDD. That's really impossible without pair programming or other full-time peer supervision, and there are other obstacles to making that happen in our team room. The next best thing is ensuring the code being written has meaningful tests that exercise its functionality. I do understand the need from time to time to exclude pieces of the codebase for which unit tests are more trouble than they're worth, and that can be done and often is. But, in the pieces that should be tested, I want them tested. Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 18:06
  • 2
    Pair programming in this situation would either amount to one of the pair being a test writer or a bunch of infighting. You need to examine the root issue unless you just want to pair each dev with a jr dev minion that only writes tests. Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 19:55
  • 2
    Agreed, if you are unwilling to invest in synchronous pair programming, you are looking at an asynchronous version like a code review to ensure adequate unit testing. Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 22:01