Timeline for Colleague unwilling to use unit tests "as it's more to code"
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 4, 2011 at 1:48 | comment | added | Jörg W Mittag |
@JBRWilkinson: Merb (former Ruby web application framework) did exactly that. Not with unit tests, though, but with functional tests. The architecture had grown "organically", and while the framework was nice to use, it wasn't nice to maintain and extend. And since maintainability and extensibility were actually two of the major selling points over its competitor Ruby on Rails, they obviously needed to do something about it. And what they did was literally to rm -rf the source and unit test directories, keeping only the functional tests, and simply get them passing again one by one.
|
|
| Feb 3, 2011 at 13:12 | comment | added | JBRWilkinson | +1 Writing a full suite of unit tests for one particular piece of the code may expose enough problems with the code that demonstrate the benefits anyhow. I remember watching a presentation on how unit tests can be used to maintain interface/API specifications/behaviours through a complete code re-write... | |
| Feb 3, 2011 at 10:48 | comment | added | Neil | +1 For indicating that bugs are inevitable and to take cover. | |
| Feb 3, 2011 at 10:46 | history | answered | thorsten müller | CC BY-SA 2.5 |