Timeline for Does adding unit tests make sense for well-known legacy code?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 24, 2011 at 10:22 | comment | added | Martin Ba | mcottle - You are missing a vital point. The unit testing will not decrease the time taken to do "manual functionality testing" of the finished feature. I still have to click-through all the dialogs involved with a prudent subset of possible inputs to make sure the actual finished app as built does what it's supposed to do. (I grant that theoretically unit testing may help to limit this manual test cycle to only one loop if the unit tests make sure that I won't find any obvious problem only during manual testing.) | |
| Oct 24, 2011 at 10:19 | comment | added | pdr | I would hope that everything gets manually tested regardless of the number of unit tests. Automated acceptance tests are another matter entirely. But then acceptance tests are not made more difficult by the codebase being legacy, so are out of scope here. | |
| Oct 24, 2011 at 10:17 | comment | added | Martin Ba | "and document your testing, again - you do that don't you?" - {putting cynical hat on:} Of course not. We are not in developer fairy land. Stuff gets implemented and tested and shipped. Later on it gets broken and fixed and tested and shipped. | |
| Oct 24, 2011 at 9:56 | history | answered | mcottle | CC BY-SA 3.0 |