Yeah it is not up to just the developers to decide what needs the most tests. Pragmatic testing means having the minimal amount of tests you need to reach the confidence required for the business risk. Bad tests cost you time with maintenance, it is better to not have them imo. If you have a QA you can use them to do stuff like accessibility and performance auditing instead of writing a lot of automated tests that slow down development.
Yes I have seen a lot of ineffective tests as well. I am going to write on what a good unit test is next :).
Yeah, I'm being directed toward leading QA, but I'm questioned every step for making change. But I have got enough that my push to make tests that are stable and reliable is working out.
Some of the challenges fighting the bad tests is that for so long the creator emphasized the limit time to maintain, which when compared to the same expectations of manually running the test, completely true.
For tests like 0=0 I think you could make a case to remove them but automation tests are more useful, I think it's worth keeping them in until you find a way to test the same stuff with integration or unit tests. If you have automation tests covering low risk stuff I think you could make a case for the cost in time to run the tests vs the value they provide and maybe trim them back.
Right, it can be hard to get to the bottom of why they are useful, see we have the equivalent unit test so it's not like I'm advocating it to not be tested.
Lots of educating I need to do, like explaining declarative languages their risks and why the unittests do cover the declarations.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Yeah it is not up to just the developers to decide what needs the most tests. Pragmatic testing means having the minimal amount of tests you need to reach the confidence required for the business risk. Bad tests cost you time with maintenance, it is better to not have them imo. If you have a QA you can use them to do stuff like accessibility and performance auditing instead of writing a lot of automated tests that slow down development.
Yes I have seen a lot of ineffective tests as well. I am going to write on what a good unit test is next :).
Yeah, I'm being directed toward leading QA, but I'm questioned every step for making change. But I have got enough that my push to make tests that are stable and reliable is working out.
Some of the challenges fighting the bad tests is that for so long the creator emphasized the limit time to maintain, which when compared to the same expectations of manually running the test, completely true.
For tests like 0=0 I think you could make a case to remove them but automation tests are more useful, I think it's worth keeping them in until you find a way to test the same stuff with integration or unit tests. If you have automation tests covering low risk stuff I think you could make a case for the cost in time to run the tests vs the value they provide and maybe trim them back.
Right, it can be hard to get to the bottom of why they are useful, see we have the equivalent unit test so it's not like I'm advocating it to not be tested.
Lots of educating I need to do, like explaining declarative languages their risks and why the unittests do cover the declarations.