Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Tests must not be robust enough, then.


sort by: page size:

Flawed tests.

Some approaches aren't very testable and produce either very bad tests or can't be tested at all.

Essentially the problem is that our testing isn't perfect.

Alas, tests aren't proofs.

Relying on tests is naive. Your tests can't cover every case. The article even mentions this -- their tests passed, but it failed in production.

It is possible to make useless tests.

Only because they're using the wrong type of tests.

All tests are problematic; some are more so.

In my experience such tests are brittle as hell.

Don't think so if your testing has obvious flaws.

testing is never sufficient

This whole article could be boiled down to: "bad tests are useless".

That sounds like a problem of too-tightly coupled tests.

I found that in some of our code the other day, even that wasn't enough to stop the tests from randomly failing.

The problem is they cannot back test the final result.

With proper testing, why not?

In this sort of scenario, the bugs lie in the expectations themselves. Tests that don’t account for that are dead weight.

Not really. As Dijistra said: "Testing only proves existence of errors, not their absense."

What I have trouble with is even gauging the quality of existing tests.
next

Legal | privacy