Timeline for Is there such a thing as having too many unit tests?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:01 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| May 5, 2017 at 16:20 | comment | added | Bruno Guardia | I love your description @johncip, definitely that is a frequent example of how a nice class gets horrible by adding a bunch of unnecessary required parameters to the constructor... | |
| May 4, 2017 at 19:41 | comment | added | johncip | Agree strongly on #3 and would also extend it to manually passing in instances of lower-level classes to higher-level classes. If a high-level-thing relies on some low-level-thing to get something done, that's ok. If it hides the details of that from callers, I'd call that good design. But if you then make low-level-thing part of high-level-thing's interface and make callers pass it in because it makes your tests pretty, now the tail is wagging the dog. (If low-level-thing is reused in a lot of places, and changes a lot, that changes things. In my experience that hasn't been typical.) | |
| May 4, 2017 at 11:11 | comment | added | jwenting | Which is not a problem with the unit tests, but with the organisation for having its priorities wrong by demanding a specific number for unit test coverage without spending the resources to create and execute proper tests at other levels. | |
| S May 4, 2017 at 10:54 | history | suggested | Toby Speight | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Use a real list; minor copy-edits for spelling and grammar |
| May 4, 2017 at 9:17 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 4, 2017 at 10:54 | |||||
| May 3, 2017 at 19:23 | history | answered | Bruno Guardia | CC BY-SA 3.0 |