• NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
    27·
    11 months ago

    There’s teams of people on the right at my company and while they’re able to build just about anything they’re asked to in wicked time, one look at their codebase makes you want to quit and become a farmer.

    Unfortunately I’ve had to do work in their repos before and I would ALWAYS prefer working with someone who aims for 100% test coverage

  • sirdorius@programming.dev
    261·
    11 months ago

    100% code coverage, integration tests passing. Deploys to prod. NullPointerException at 3am

    (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

  • nxdefiant@startrek.website
    20·
    11 months ago

    .000001 Galaxy brain guy:

    100% test coverage has been failing for months, the codebase is more debt than tech - send it, nothing matters anymore.

  • sebsch@discuss.tchncs.de
    18·
    11 months ago

    You need unit tests for maintenance and refactoring.

    Yes it may work, but now is the moment you still understand your code. Write that fucking docs and put in basic unit tests now.

    • SkyNTP
      7·
      11 months ago

      We should strive for a wide range of test cases. Real testing is done when the software is tested against a wide range of user inputs. Code coverage is no indicator of response to cases.

      Unit tests are a fantastic way of implementing test cases. I am of the opinion that most bug PRs should start with a unit test, if nothing else, a persistent reminder that: hey BTW, your user is going to input this garbage, so any logic you implement ALSO has to be resilient against that garbage.

    • CalcProgrammer1
      9·
      11 months ago

      I’m in the middle and I don’t always like it. 100% coverage is mandatory for the industry I work in though. I get that module testing is important but it can be such a chore to work on. I got pulled in to help write tests for another project this month and that is somewhere between watching grass grow and watching paint dry in terms of level of excitement.

    • OpenStars@startrek.websiteEnglish
      2·
      11 months ago

      I’m in this meme and I don’t like it. I float around depending on what thought crosses the mind of the person above me most recently, so I’ve long since decided to stop caring about such “minor details” :-(.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      11 months ago

      I’m in the middle but happy to be there - shit will occasionally break but we have coverage of all the important stuff… And it’s good coverage - coverage percentage is a bullshit metric that provides a false sense of security because it’s by line.

  • toastal
    102·
    11 months ago

    There’s nothing to test when your data structure can’t represent an invalid state. So many tests are being basic stuff like checking nil & empty lists; basic ADTs can design you out of that whole host of invalid states. Further, if your language only allows side effects at the edges of the application & data types are immutable, you are way less likely to need all these mock utils or get unexpected changes to your data.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      5·
      11 months ago

      At my organization we have unit tests about our unit testing framework… I could never be assed to write these myself but I’m fine not needlessly deleting the work other people wrote. It does feel incredibly silly though.

  • Treeniks
    2·
    11 months ago

    just do everything in Isabelle and prove correctness, ezpz no tests required