5 ms·
I think you and I don't share what is a "test". Are you thinking about unit tests? I'm thinking about unit tests, smoke tests, integration tests, e2e tests, fun
by kennykartman 4mo ago
I think you and I don't share what is a "test". Are you thinking about unit tests? I'm thinking about unit tests, smoke tests, integration tests, e2e tests, functional tests, manual QA tests and probably even "the-product-works-as-expected-as-I-can-see-from-the-amazon-reviews-of-our-clients tests".
I agree with your point of view in general, but "having tests" doesn't mean "having great tests". If I rewrite my code and give the binary to our clients and they don't see any difference or bug, well, that means the rewrite passed the ultimate test. In fact, the percentage of our clients that care about implementation details (such as PL) is precisely 0%.
- fg137 4mo agoI'm not interested in debating what "test" means. There is a standard definition in the software industry.
- kennykartman 4mo agoOk with that. So yes, I stand by my stance: looking at test is enough. We can debate whether when tests can be considered complete enough.