Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   Skynet debugging your fresh code? What could go write?   (theregister.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Software testing, Extreme Programming, unit tests, Test-driven development, Unit testing, Mock object, Write Test, unit test framework  
•       •       •

343 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 21 Sep 2020 at 2:23 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



5 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-09-21 1:04:49 PM  
They now own your code due to a poorly worded ULA?
 
2020-09-21 2:33:46 PM  
I prefer machine overlords over sneering Russian autocrats any day. In fact, we should use them as scapegoats.
 
2020-09-21 2:50:00 PM  
"We write a full set of unit tests that compile and pass."

Neat! That's what I do! The difference? When asked why I did something, I can provide an explanation other than "I ran 85 slightly different versions of the same test involving a buffer overflow, and this one ran in the most efficient manner given the data types, parameters, and execution plan."

Unit tests aren't simply a mechanical exercise of the code as expressed by the limits of its data types, parameters, and execution plan. Without knowledge of intent, use cases, and interoperability, this is less, not more, useful - it'd lull devs into a false sense of security, and they would end up debugging the unit tests (and arguing with the AI in the process) instead of debugging the code.

"That is generally not the problem that most of our customers have. Most of our customers have very few unit tests, and what they typically do is have a set of tests that run functional end-to-end tests that run at the end of the process."

Yeah... no, I'm not touching you with a stick. I'm reading code that, right now, has hundreds of unit tests associated with it, covering not just the mechanical exercise of that code, but the business (not merely execution) scenarios involved in its use.

That's a guy saying that this works great in a shop that doesn't give a shiat; that sees a successful compilation with a corresponding "pass" on their unit tests as meeting the metric needed for that shop to get paid by their client.
 
2020-09-21 3:17:00 PM  

FormlessOne: That's a guy saying that this works great in a shop that doesn't give a shiat; that sees a successful compilation with a corresponding "pass" on their unit tests as meeting the metric needed for that shop to get paid by their client.


Having unit tests that bump coverage metrics up without actually exercising the code involved is more dangerous than not having unit tests at all.

At least I know my coverage sucks under the latter.  I don't understand that it does in the former.
 
2020-09-21 3:51:06 PM  

NkThrasher: FormlessOne: That's a guy saying that this works great in a shop that doesn't give a shiat; that sees a successful compilation with a corresponding "pass" on their unit tests as meeting the metric needed for that shop to get paid by their client.

Having unit tests that bump coverage metrics up without actually exercising the code involved is more dangerous than not having unit tests at all.

At least I know my coverage sucks under the latter.  I don't understand that it does in the former.


It's dangerous if you give a shiat, yes. You'll get nothing but emphatic agreement from me.
 
Displayed 5 of 5 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.